Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
War of Words; President Bush Reacts to Democrats' Threat to Cut Off Most War Funding
Aired April 03, 2007 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And at the top this hour, a threat from the Senate's top Democrats to cut off war funds for Iraq. A charge by the White House that Democrats are flip-flopping. Lots of sparks flying as the White House and Congress wrestle for the upper hand in the battle over Iraq. We are expecting the president to speak just minutes from now.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, CNN's Elaine Quijano is watching this story for us at the White House and she joins us now live.
Elaine, what are we expecting to hear from the president today? Is he going to escalate the war of words with congressional Democrats?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly going to try to increase the pressure on Democrats, certainly, Betty.
President Bush, this morning, met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates for an update, in fact, on the situation in Iraq. And the president is going to be making those remarks shortly in the Rose Garden. Not expected to show any signs of backing down from his opposition to any kind of timetables for a U.S. troop withdrawal in Iraq.
Now, yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney blasted lawmakers who support the idea of time frames at a fund-raiser in Alabama for Republican Senator Jeff Sessions. He forcefully reiterated President Bush's position that he will veto any war funding legislation that includes a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By delaying funding for the troops, the Democrats believe they can make the president accept unwise and inappropriate restrictions on our commanders. It's nothing less than an attempt to force the president's hand, they're going to find out that they've misread George W. Bush.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now the White House, Betty, has been keeping tally of how long it has been since President Bush submitted his war funding request to Congress. As we approach this 60-day mark now, Betty, you can expect the president to reiterate that once again today, arguing that the clock is ticking.
Betty.
NGUYEN: Yes, it is. And there are a lot of questions indeed. We understand the president, as well with making a statement, will be taking some questions from reporters. True?
QUIJANO: We are hear that he will likely take questions, yes. And, you know, it's been a while since he's actually had a news conference. I think the last one was technically back in February, if I'm not mistaken. So this will be an opportunity certainly to not only ask about the Iraq War, but also the continuing story of Alberto Gonzales, his embattled attorney general. So we are expecting that the president will likely take some questions when we hear from him in the Rose Garden later today.
NGUYEN: We will be watching very closely and bringing it to you live.
Thank you, Elaine.
HARRIS: CNN congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel is following this story for us on Capitol Hill.
And, Andrea, I can't imagine we will hear from the president in just a couple of minutes and not hear let's say from Senator Harry Reid shortly thereafter.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're already planning for it, Tony. The spokesman for Senator Reid, Jim Manley, has told me that Senator Reid is likely to take questions later this afternoon in a previously-scheduled news conference that he's going to have, an event in Nevada today. So we should hear from him sometime later this afternoon.
And what we can expect him to say is a lot of what we've been hearing in the last couple of days, and that is Senator Reid is, again, throwing down the gauntlet to President Bush, basically telling him if you veto this supplemental bill, which they expect to get to him in the next couple of weeks, if you veto this bill, get ready because things are going to get a lot hotter here on Capitol Hill. Senator Reid has signed on to a bill that was cosponsored or put forward by another senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold.
And this is a really incredibly tough piece of legislation. It says not only would troops start to withdraw within four months of enactment, but basically the money for those troops, once they withdraw a year from now, in March of 2008, the money for any other troops would no longer be there. So this is something that Russ Feingold has been talking about for months. But the idea that you have now the Senate majority leader, Tony, signing on to this is another sign that at least Senate Democrats are really ratcheting things up.
HARRIS: Well, Andrea, here's the question. Could a measure to deny funds to combat operations in Iraq even pass the Senate when it's not clear that the Senate has enough votes to override a presidential veto on the current Senate language? KOPPEL: Exactly. And that is a very important point to make. That is, just getting this last Iraq supplemental through the House and Senate was a herculean effort by House and Senate Democrats. The idea that you would have a hard deadline for money to be cut off, not for the troops that are still there doing counterterrorism and helping to train Iraqi forces, more in a support mission, but the idea that the money would be cut off and that there would be enough support to get it through the Senate is extremely unlikely.
But then I have to also put this caveat out there. Until last week, very few people thought that Senate Democrats were going to be able to get through an Iraq supplemental that had that March 31st, 2008, deadline in it.
HARRIS: You're absolutely right about that. Congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel following developments on The Hill for us.
Andrea, thank you.
NGUYEN: Well, as we wait for the president to speak in about five minutes from the Rose Garden, we want to delve a little bit deeper into this issue dealing with the Iraq War spending. And we want to bring in CNN's political contributor, Amy Walter, who's also with the "Cook Political Report," to talk about the fact that, so far, Amy, this has been a game of chicken.
AMY WALTER, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: That's right.
NGUYEN: A political game of chicken. So is this an early sign that the gridlock is just going to go on and on and on?
WALTER: Oh, well, yes. The signs are certainly there. Look, you have an entrenched president and an emboldened Congress. A Congress that say, we came off of a very powerful 2006 election where we got a mandate from voters for change. They did not like the status quo. They want to see something happen in Iraq and we're going to carry that forward.
And you have a president who says, that's not going to happen. We are going to do things my way. I'm the commander in chief. I'm the one that makes military decisions. There's no sign that there's going to be a compromise on that.
I think a really important question will come at the end of this week, or when Congress actually comes back on the 10th of April, they will have been home for a week. They'll be listening to their constituents. Many of them have town hall meetings. We're going to get a real sense for what they're hearing on the ground. That may tell us just what kind of compromise we may see when the Senate and the House have to get together and come up with a bill to give to the president.
NGUYEN: We are watching very closely, because we're about a minute away from the president speaking today. Let me get in one more question if I could. It seems like, as we've been talking, that this line has been drawn in the sand. What can be done to stop this? WALTER: The line has been drawn in the sand for, you mean . . .
NGUYEN: Between the two. Between Congress and the president. I mean they're both fighting very hard on this and they're both taking very strong stances.
WALTER: That's right. At some point, a bill has to be signed because money needs to be spent over in Iraq and Afghanistan. So fundamentally there will be a bill. The question is, you know, it's one of those, do you win the battle, lose the war in terms of your PR, from a PR perspective, who comes out on top.
NGUYEN: That was my next question.
WALTER: Yes.
NGUYEN: Who does come out on top? Who looks worse in this situation?
WALTER: Well, there we go. What Republicans are hoping is that Democrats look like they're pushing the envelope here, giving an embattled president a chance to come back and redefine himself.
NGUYEN: Amy, I want to stop you right now because the president is reaching the podium. And we're going to take a listen to what he has to say.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.
I've just had a good meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates and General Pete Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary Gates and General Pace updated me on the deployment of American reinforcements to Iraq.
At this moment, two of the five additional U.S. Army brigades we are sending for this mission are operating in Baghdad. A third brigade is now moving from Kuwait and will be fully operation in Baghdad in the coming weeks. And the remaining two brigades will deploy in April and May.
It will be early June before all U.S. forces dedicated to the operation are in place, so this operation is still in its beginning stages.
The reinforcements we've sent to Baghdad are having an impact. They're making a difference. And as more of those reinforcements arrive in the months ahead, their impact will continue to grow.
BUSH: But to succeed in their mission, our troops need Congress to provide the resources, funds and equipment they need to fight our enemies.
It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops. but substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.
I've made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from the strong support for this position in both houses that the veto would be sustained.
BUSH: And it is also clear from the strong support for this position in both houses that the veto would be sustained.
The only way the Democrats were able to pass their bill in the first place was to load the bill with pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war.
Here's what one leading Democrat in the House said, quote: "A lot of things had to go into that bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want there."
It's an honest appraisal of the process that we just witnessed.
Still, the Democrats in Congress continue to pursue their bills. And now they have left Washington for spring recess without finishing the work.
Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq.
If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.
BUSH: If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks it will have significant consequences for our men and women in the armed forces.
As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated during his testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality-of-life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. These cuts would be necessary because the money will have to be shifted to support the troops on the front lines.
The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. BUSH: The Army would be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for depots where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired.
They will also have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active-duty forces, reducing the availability of these forces to deploy overseas. If this happens, some of the forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other units are not ready to take their places.
If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these new teams are unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend in the theater.
In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership in -- Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds.
BUSH: The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines, and others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that support in deed as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them, yet debating these differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.
Congress' most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility. And if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.
I'll now answer some questions.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of these international conferences on Iraq.
BUSH; Excuse me.
QUESTION: You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq.
What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be pre-empting your own efforts?
BUSH: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals, signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad.
And by that I mean, you know, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite, or at least not stopping, the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.
BUSH: There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad: some Americans, but a lot of European leaders, high- ranking officials. And yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't responded.
It's one thing to send a message. It's another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something.
So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior.
BUSH: But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.
QUESTION: Would the U.S. be willing to give up five Iranians held in Iraq if it would help persuade Iran to give up the 15 British sailors?
BUSH: I said the other day that, first of all, the seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians, and that I support the Blair government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we're in close consultation with the British government.
I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.
QUESTION: Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys in part on the basis of loyalty; that was one of the criteria that was used.
What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?
BUSH: I -- obviously when you name a U.S. attorney, you want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion: somebody who's qualified, somebody who can get a job done.
The president names the U.S. attorneys, and the president has the right to remove U.S. attorneys. BUSH: And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to -- I believe it's the current issue, of the U.S. -- eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure. They have served four-year terms. And we have every right to replace them.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Let me finish, please.
I am genuinely concerned about their reputations now that this has become a Washington, D.C., focus. I'm sorry it's come to this.
On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.
BUSH: And that's what the American people have got to understand.
We had a right to remove them. We did remove them. And there have been -- there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said: no credible evidence of wrongdoing.
Bill?
QUESTION: Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement...
BUSH: Wrong Bill.
QUESTION: Which one, him?
BUSH: No, you. The cute looking one.
QUESTION: Thanks so much.
(LAUGHTER)
A lot of the disagreement, sir, over the way you're handling Iraq -- disagreement from the public and Congress -- stems from the belief that things are not working despite the surge. The Iraqis have met, if any, of the benchmarks that were laid down for them so far. Senator McCain walked in the Baghdad marketplace with air cover and a company of troops. But people don't believe that this can work, and they question the continued sacrifice of U.S. troops to help make it work.
BUSH: Yeah. Bill, I'm very aware that there are a group of people that don't think we should be there in the first place.
BUSH: There are some who don't believe that this strategy will work.
I've listened carefully to their complaints. Obviously, I listened to these concerns prior to deciding to reinforce. This is precisely the debate we had inside the White House: Can we succeed?
I know there are some who have basically said it is impossible to succeed. I strongly disagree with those people. I believe, not only can we succeed; I know we must succeed.
And so I decided to -- at the recommendation of military commanders, decided to send reinforcements.
As opposed to leaving Baghdad and watching the country go up in flames, I chose a different route, which is to send more troops into Baghdad.
And General Petraeus, who is a reasoned, sober man, says there is some progress being made. And he cites, you know, murders and, in other words, there's some calm coming to the capital.
But he also fully recognizes, as do I, it's still dangerous.
In other words, suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission. The whole strategy is to give the Iraqi government time to reconcile, time to unify the country, time to respond to the demands of the 12 million people that voted.
You said the Iraqis haven't met any obligations. I would disagree with your characterization.
They have said that they will send Iraqi forces into Baghdad to take the lead, along with U.S. troops, to bring security to Baghdad. And they've done that.
BUSH: They said they'd name a commander for Baghdad. They have done that.
They said they'd send up -- you know, they'd send troop out into the neighborhoods to clear and hold and then build. They're doing that.
They said they would send a budget up that would spend a considerable amount of their money on reconstruction. They have done that.
They're working on an oil law that is in progress. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the prime minister yesterday about progress on the oil law.
He reminded me that sometimes the legislature doesn't do what the executive branch wants them to do. I reminded him I understand what he's talking about.
But nevertheless, I strongly agree that we've got to continue to make it clear to the Iraqi government that this is -- the solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, is more than a military mission.
It's precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad: to be able to provide some breathing space for this democratically elected government to succeed. And it's hard work, and I understand it's hard work.
Secondly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's only 40 percent of our troops that are there on the ground.
BUSH: That's why I find it somewhat astounding that people in Congress would start calling for withdrawal even before all the troops have made it to Baghdad.
QUESTION: Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign strategist in 2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your administration this weekend.
I'm wondering if you were personally stunned, and if you worry about losing support of people -- of him and people like him.
BUSH: First of all, I respect Matthew. I've known him for awhile. And as you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign.
I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country.
Matthew's case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he's got a son in the U.S. armed forces and -- I mean, I can understand Matthew's concerns.
I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States.
What I'm worried about is that we leave before the mission is done -- and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself -- and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos, which will embolden extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists, which would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America, which could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to harm us.
BUSH: And so, on the one hand, I do fully understand the anguish people go through about this war.
And it's not just Matthew. There's a lot of our citizens who are concerned about this war.
But I also hope that people will take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq.
My main job is to protect the people. And I firmly believe that if we were to leave before the job is done the enemy would follow us here.
BUSH: And what makes Iraq different from previous struggles is that September the 11th showed that chaos in another part of the world and/or safe haven for killers, for radicals, affects the security of the United States.
QUESTION: Back to Iran, sir, ABC has been reporting that Iran will be capable of building a nuclear bomb within two years. Have you seen evidence that Iran is accelerating its nuclear program?
BUSH: I haven't seen the report that you just referred to.
I do share concerns about Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon. I firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East.
And therefore we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon; to make it clear that they have choices to make, whether the choice be isolation or missed opportunity to grow their economies.
And so we take your -- we take the -- we take seriously the attempts of the Iranians to gain a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: Have you seen evidence of acceleration, though?
BUSH: You know, I'm not going to talk about any intelligence that I've seen, one way or the other.
But I do want you to know how seriously we take the Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of our Iranian policy. It is in this -- why we spend a lot of time in working with friends, allies, concerned people to rally international support, to make it clear to the Iranian people that there is a better option for them.
Now, we have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value their history. We value their traditions. But their government is making some choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a better economic future. So we take the issue very seriously.
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you aware of the current price of a gallon of gas?
QUESTION: Can you explain why it's gone up so sharply in recent weeks?
And is there anything in the near future indicating the prices might start coming down again before the heavy summer driving season?
BUSH: About $2.60-plus.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Yes...
(LAUGHTER)
Nationwide average. The price of gasoline obviously varies from region to region, for a variety of reasons. Some has to do with the amount of taxation at the pump. Some of it has to do with the boutique fuels that have been mandated on a state-by-state basis.
But a lot of the price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil. And the price of crude oil is on the rise. And the price of crude oil is on the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it comes -- when it looks like there may be a crisis with a crude-oil- producing nation, like Iran.
But the whole point about rising crude oil prices and rising gasoline prices is that this country ought to work hard to get off our addiction to oil.
BUSH: All the more reason why Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set forth, which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10 years.
There's two reasons why: one is for national security concerns, and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can get this done with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk as quickly as possible.
Dancer. Dancing man.
(LAUGHTER)
That would be David Gregory. For those of you not aware, Gregory put on a show the other...
QUESTION: Everybody's aware, Mr. President. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: Well, maybe the listeners aren't.
QUESTION: Yes, that's all right.
BUSH: That was a beautiful performance, seriously.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you very much.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Mr. President, you say the Democrats are undercutting troops the way they have voted. They're obviously trying to assert more concern over foreign policy.
Isn't that what the voters elected them to do in November?
BUSH: I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops in harm -- who are in harm's way. They want money to the troops.
BUSH: And they don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.
It's one thing to object to the policy but it's another thing, when you have troops in harm's way, not to give them the funds they need. And no question, there's been a political dance going on here in Washington. You follow this closely; you know what I'm talking about.
Not only was there a political dance going on -- in other words, people trying to appeal to one side of their party or another. But they then had to bring out new funding streams in order to attract votes to an emergency war supplemental.
And my concern is several.
One, Congress shouldn't tell generals how to run the war, Congress should not shortchange our military, Congress should not use an emergency war spending measure as a vehicle to put pet spending projects on that have nothing to do with the war.
Secondly, as I mentioned in these remarks, delays beyond mid- April and then into May will affect the readiness of the U.S. military.
BUSH: So my attitude is, enough politics. They need to come back, pass a bill -- if they want to play politics, fine, they continue to do that, I will veto it. But they ought to do it quickly. They ought to get to the bill to my desk as quickly as possible, and I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without withdrawal dates.
It is amazing to me that, one, the United States Senate passed a -- confirmed General Petraeus overwhelmingly after he testified as to what he thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and then won't fund him.
Secondly, I -- we have put 40 percent of the reinforcements in place. And yet people already want to start withdrawing before the mission has had a chance to succeed.
And they need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk. And if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it and then we can get down to business of getting this thing done.
And we can do it quickly. It doesn't have to take a lot of time. And we get the bill, get the troops funded and we go about our business of winning this war.
QUESTION: On climate change and the decision that was issued yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, what's your reaction to that decision?
QUESTION: And don't you think that this makes some kind of broad caps on greenhouse gas emissions more or less inevitable?
BUSH: I -- first of all, the decision the Supreme Court is -- we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land.
And secondly, we're taking some time to fully understand the details of the decision. As you know, this decision was focused on emissions that come from automobiles. My attitude is is that we have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists on 35 -- using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles.
BUSH: In other words, there is a remedy available for Congress. And I strongly hope that they pass this remedy quickly.
In terms of the broader issue, I -- first of all, I've taken this issue very seriously. You know, I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases, that -- but here are the principles by which I think we can get a good deal.
One, anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth. It's -- and I say that because, one, I care about the working people of the country, but also because in order to solve greenhouse gas -- the greenhouse gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive. And it's easier to afford expensive technologies if you're prosperous.
Secondly, whatever we do, must be in concert what happens -- with what happens internationally. Because we can pass any number of measures that are now being discussed in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.
BUSH: And so those are the principles that will guide our decision-making: How do you encourage new technology? How do you grow the economy? And how do you make sure that China is -- and India -- are a part of a -- you know, a rational solution?
QUESTION: Since General Pace made his comments -- they got a lot of attention -- about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue.
Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?
BUSH: I -- I -- I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation.
I do believe the "don't ask/don't tell" policy is good policy.
BUSH: Sammon, yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
BUSH: You're standing out there. I can see you.
QUESTION: When Congress has linked war funding with a timetable, you have argued micromanagement. When they've linked it to unrelated spending, you've argued pork barrel.
But now there's talk from Harry Reid and others that if you veto this bill, they might come back and just simply cut off funding.
Wouldn't that be a legitimate exercise of a congressional authority, which is the power of the purse?
BUSH: The -- the Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now. I just disagree with their decisions. I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is -- it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens.
Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work. That's what Plante was asking about. In my conversations with President Maliki, he seems dedicated to doing that.
BUSH: And we will continue to work with him to achieve those objectives.
But they're wondering whether or not, you know, America is going to keep commitments. So when they hear withdrawal and timetables and, you know, it, rightly so, sends different kinds of signals.
The -- it's interesting that Harry Reid -- Leader Reid spoke out with a different option.
Whatever option they choose, I would hope they'd get home, get a bill and get it to my desk. And if it has artificial timetables of withdrawal or if it cuts off funding for troops or if it tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it.
And then we can get about the business of giving our troops what they need, what the -- what our generals want them to have, and give our generals the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives that we set out by reinforcing troops in Iraq.
You know, what's interesting is, you don't hear a lot of debate about Washington as to what will happen if there is failure.
BUSH: Again, Plante mentioned that people don't think we can succeed. You know, in other words, there's no change of succeeding. That's a part of the debate.
But what people also have got to understand is what will happen if we fail. And the way you fail is to leave before the job is done; in other words, just abandon this young democracy, say we're tired, that we'll withdraw from Baghdad and hope there's not chaos.
I believe that if this capital city were to fall into chaos -- which is where it was headed prior to reinforcing -- that there'd be no chance for this young democracy to survive. That's why I made the decision I made.
And the reason why I believe it's important to help this young democracy survive is so that the country has a chance to become a stabilizing influence in a dangerous part of the world. I also understand that if the country -- if the experience were to fail, radicals would be emboldened, people that had been -- that can't stand America would find, you know, new ways to recruit, there would be, potentially, additional resources for them to use at their disposal.
BUSH: The failure in Iraq would endanger American security.
I have told the American people often, it is best to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, fully recognizing that what happens over there can affect the security here. And that's one of the major lessons of September the 11th.
In that case, there was safe haven found in a failed state, where killers plotted and planted -- planned and trained, and came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. And I vowed we weren't going to let that happen again.
Secondly, the way to defeat the ideology that these people believe is through a competing ideology, one based upon liberty and human rights and human dignity.
And there are some who, I guess, say that's impossible to happen in the Middle East.
BUSH: I strongly disagree.
I know it is hard work. I believe it is necessary work to secure this country in the long run.
QUESTION: The conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak recently wrote that, in 50 years of covering Washington, he's never seen a president more isolated than you are right now.
What do you say to critics like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than Richard Nixon was during Watergate?
BUSH: How did he define "isolated"?
QUESTION: He said you were isolated, primarily, from your own party; that Republican leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that on the Gonzales matter in particular you're very isolated.
BUSH: I think you're going to find that the White House and the Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this supplemental.
When I announced that I will veto a bill with -- that withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal or micromanaged the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message.
I think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know: that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of the country.
We'll work together on No Child Left Behind. BUSH: We'll work together on immigration reform. We will work together, most importantly, on budget to make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.
The other day the Democrats submitted budgets that raise taxes on the working people in order to increase the amount of money they have available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this president are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose tax increases, and so do the majority of members in the United States Congress.
QUESTION: Mr. President, good morning. You've talked about...
BUSH: Good morning. Good morning. That's a good way to start.
QUESTION: You've talked about the consequences of failure in Iraq. And you've said that the enemies would follow us home.
I wonder, given that it seems like that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of people who are charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe, so...
BUSH: What was that again?
QUESTION: Well, you say that the enemies would follow us home. If...
BUSH: I will. That's what they did. Just like September the 11th. They plotted, planned and attacked.
QUESTION: But I wonder in your own mind, how does that vision play out? How do they follow us home? Because we've spent so much money and put so much resource into making this country safe.
BUSH: They -- I'm not going to predict to you the methodology they'll use. Just you need to know they want to hit us again.
And we -- we do everything we can here at the homeland to protect us.
BUSH: That's why I've got a Homeland Security Department. That's why we are, you know, inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes.
That's why we need border enforcement, with a comprehensive immigration bill, by the way, to make sure it's easier to enforce the border.
I mean, we're doing a lot. That's why we need to make sure our intelligence services coordinate information together better.
So we spend a lot of time trying to protect this country. But if they were ever to have safe haven, it would make the efforts much harder. That's my point.
We cannot let them have safe haven again. The lesson of September 11th is, if these killers are able to find safe haven from which to plot, plan and attack, they will do so.
So I don't know what methodology they'll use. We're -- we're -- we're planning for the worst. We cover all fronts. And it's hard to protect a big country like this.
BUSH: And I applaud those who are -- who have done a fantastic job of protecting us since September the 11th.
But make no mistake about it: There's still an enemy that would like to do us harm. And I believe, whether it be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else, if these enemies are able to find safe haven, it will endanger the lives of our fellow citizens.
I also understand that -- that the best way to defeat them in the long run is to show people in the Middle East, for example, that there is a better alternative to tyrannical societies, to societies that don't meet the hopes and aspirations of the average people. And that is through a society that is based upon the universal concept of liberty.
Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland. And it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like -- or to the developed world, to people like in the United States.
So thank you all very much for your interest. I hope you have a nice holiday. Appreciate it.
(INSERT 10:40)
KOPPEL: They've been waiting months upon months upon months. If this was such an emergency why didn't President Bush get it to Congress sooner? So the fact that he's going to be getting it sometime in April, they feel, is a perfectly reasonable period of time.
HARRIS: OK. And I know you'll be watching this back and forth for us on Capitol Hill. Andrea Koppel for us. Andrea, thank you.
NGUYEN: But you do bring up an important point, and that is the troops are in the middle of this. So let's check in now with CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.
And, Barbara, I want you to take a listen to another excerpt from what the president said just moments ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE U.S.: The bottom line is this, Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me. And I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NGUYEN: Calling it unacceptable, but I remember speaking with you yesterday. Isn't that already happing? Yesterday you reported that some 9,000 troops are headed back to Iraq. Many of them leaving before the timetable was, you know, secured for them to leave.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Betty. The troops are already stretched thin. The military already struggling to fill the requirement for this higher number of troops in Iraq. Really the bottom line here, you know, to be terribly candid, is they're going to get the money. It's not a question of if. It is a question of when. And how much pain everybody is going to feel financially here before there is a resolution to this issue.
What the military has been saying is they want to start see that $100 billion in war funding by the middle of April or they're going to have to start making cuts. Of course, what they'll do is they'll start cutting here at home. Equipment, repairing equipment, training of National Guard and Reserves, trying to keep the mission going in Iraq. Whether it's April, May or July, the question is how far do you go in the cuts, how much pain, how long do you keep the troops on duty in Iraq who might be scheduled to come home if the fresh troops don't have the money for training to go to Iraq. So it's really a question of the calendar. There's a lot of room to maneuver to shift some funds around. They may have to do that for a while. But eventually there is going to be a bill. The president will sign it. And this war certainly is going to go on for some time. Betty?
NGUYEN: As they say, the devil is in the details. Barbara Starr, thank you.
HARRIS: And still to come this morning, the battle between the White House and Congress over war funding and an adviser to four presidents weighs in, David Gergen coming up. Good morning, David. In the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: OK. Betty, as promised, David Gergen is with us now, a former adviser to one, two, three, four presidents. He's with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and he joins us from Cambridge, Mass, this morning. David, great to see you.
As usual, when we get an opportunity to talk, after the president has made a statement or a news conference, as we had earlier this hour, what are your thoughts on, your general thoughts, impressions on what the president had to say?
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: I think in many ways it was a predictable news conference, and that is he ratcheted up the pressure on the Democrats in Congress over this showdown. The pressure has been growing on both sides. Andrea Koppel just reported. What was surprising about this, and has been surprising with the Democrats, is we all know a showdown is coming. We know a veto is coming.
But what's going to happen after the veto? And on both sides you see a hardening of positions, sort of a more confrontational sense. I think with most administrations in the past, knowing a showdown was coming, people would start angling for, okay, after the showdown how do we get together and compose our differences, reconcile our differences, and go on. And in this case, you've got Harry Reid toughening up already about the post-veto and how the president today toughening up as if you've got to do it my way or there's no way. And in the war's going to collapse and so forth, which just isn't true, as we know.
But you would assume by now that they would start talking how do we work something out so that we can go on. And by the way, if they don't work something out on this, and this kind of confrontational attitude grows, you're going to see a poisoning of the rest of the environment for a lot of other legislation the president wants on other issues, like immigration, energy and so forth. So I was surprised by that. The president is, most presidents you see at this point when they're as weak as this, become agile, they begin moving around, how do I maneuver out of this situation and this corner. This president is not trying to do that. He just sit there.
NGUYEN: Given that situation and that the clock that is ticking, do you ultimately feel regardless of this bill and when it's sent in, May, June, July, that the troop also indeed be the ones who ultimately do suffer?
GERGEN: One has a sense that readiness could suffer. I doubt the troops on the ground in Iraq will suffer very much in terms of armor and that sort of thing. And I don't think there will be much slowdown on the surge. But I do think that the readiness here at home and troops may be sent more quickly over there. We've been saying that all the way through this war anyway. The ones who have been paying the price all the way through this have been the families and the troops have been put through a whole lot already.
HARRIS: I think right on that one. Lets sort of bottom line this as we do here. Who has the trump card when it comes to this supplemental? The ultimate trump card, is it the president or is it Congress?
GERGEN: The president no longer holds the trump card. The one thing he's got is the troops on the ground. And I don't think any American, regardless of what you think about this war, wants to short change those troops and the troops hold the trump card. The president is out of trump cards. He's got to find a way to create a new game here. And the Democrats don't have much interest right now. Frankly, from the nation's point of view the Democrats ought to be looking for, how can we work with this fellow. You know, we were promised at the beginning of this year, by the president, by the Democrats, they were going to try to reconcile their differences and work together as one team. We're not seeing that now. These guy's are at each other's throats and I think from the country's point of view it is not only frustrating, it's discouraging to hear this kind of language and this kind of confrontation.
NGUYEN: Well, let's take this outside of the country's point of view. When we look at it on the big picture, in the global view, what kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world, especially in our fight against terror?
GERGEN: The message is we are becoming hugely polarized here at home. But again, there is a way the White House can use this Democratic pressure to get this thing concluded. They can use it with the Maliki government, the irony here is the president's got the opportunity with the Maliki government in Iraq to have a good cop bad cop routine. Look, I'm the good cop. I'm going to work with you but if you don't work with me and do what I want, we've got the bad cop. The Democrats back there in Washington will force a lot of things. This gives the president leverage in Iraq. It's been surprising to me the administration hasn't picked up on that and used that with the Maliki government in Iraq.
HARRIS: David Gergen with us this morning. David, as always, we appreciate your time.
GERGEN: Thanks again. Take care. Bye.
HARRIS: And good morning again, everyone, you're with CNN, you're informed.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
