President Bush on Congressional war powers, in an interview with an incredulous Wall Street Journal editorial board (emphasis mine): WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . . GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . . WSJ: You do? GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. I find it interesting, however, that on the one hand the Senate listens to the testimony of David Petraeus, who said, send me over with some additional reinforcements and this is the best chance to succeed. And they vote for him 81 to nothing. In other words, they listened to his testimony, appreciated what he had to say, and then they forgot the part about how he said I need the help. There's a contradiction there. . . . WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq? GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy. WSJ: But can they put conditions on those funds? Can they say we're only gonna give you the money if you don't send troops to Anbar province? GWB: They put conditions on funds all the time. Some of those are called earmarks. WSJ: Would you veto . . . GWB: Well, . . . I have put forth a plan that will succeed and it needs to be given a chance. So I'll wait and see what they try to do. But I have said [to] the American people I've analyzed every plan and I think this one has the best chance of success. If you think failure is a disaster, then you have an obligation to come up with a plan for success and this is the one that I think will work.