Listen Up, Mr. President听取了主席先生，
Two myths have sprung up around the House and Senate bills that require President Bush to withdraw US forces from Iraq.两个神话，涌现出围绕美国众议院和参议院的法案，要求布希总统撤回美国军队从伊拉克撤出。 One is that he would have to pull out all the troops.其中一个是他将不得不撤出所有军队。 The other is that, if Bush vetoes the final bill (as he is nearly certain to do), the war—and all other military activities—would grind to a halt, leaving the troops in the lurch, bereft of basic ammo and supplies.另一种可能是，如果布什否决最终法案（因为他几乎可以肯定会这么做） ，战争及其他一切军事活动-将停顿下来，离开军队驻扎在损害社会安定，缺乏基本的弹药和物资。
Both myths are false, the product of spin.这两个神话是假的，这种产品的自旋。
The Pentagon has several ways to reroute money if a veto locks the emergency-spending bill in temporary limbo while Congress goes on Easter recess.五角大楼已通过多种方式变更金钱如行使否决权锁紧急支出法案在临时莲步而国会接着复活节休会。 And both chambers’ bills leave leeway for quite a lot of US troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely—though, true, there would be fewer than there are now, and they would perform less-ambitious missions.和参众两院法案留下余地相当多的美军士兵留在伊拉克无限期地-虽然属实，将有不到的是，现在有，他们将演出较少雄心勃勃的使命。
Beyond this, the House version of the bill offers a political-military strategy toward Iraq that the White House might do well to emulate—as a general approach, if not in all its details.除此之外，众议院版的条例草案提供了一个政治-军事战略，对伊拉克说，白宫可能做好学习的好榜样-作为一般的做法，如果不是在其所有的细节。
First, let’s deal with the consequences of a veto.首先，让我们处理这个后果的否决权。 The congressional demands for a troop withdrawal are merely sections of the much larger bill to provide $96 billion in emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.美国国会要求撤军只是章节大得多的条例草案，以提供96000000000美元在紧急支出为在伊拉克的军事行动和阿富汗。 A veto would kill not only the language on withdrawal but also the $96 billion.否决权会杀死不仅是语言上撤出，而且96000000000美元。
Administration officials invoke the time when President Bill Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress’ budget and House Speaker Newt Gingrich walked away, forcing the federal government to shut down—a series of events that politically tarnished the Republicans in the long run.美国政府官员引用的时候，克林顿总统否决了共和党国会预算和众议院议长金里奇走开了，迫使联邦政府关闭-一连串的事件，在政治上败坏了共和党在长远之计。 Officials warn that the same thing will happen to the congressional Democrats if they force Bush to shut down the war.官员警告说，同样的事情发生，给国会的民主党人，如果他们迫使布什关闭战争。
That’s not going to happen.这是不会发生的。 A story in today’s edition of一个故事，在今天的版 the Hill 山 outlines several ways the Pentagon could still get funds to the troops.概述了几种方法，五角大楼还可以得到资金的归宿。 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could “reprogram” money from one account to another.任国防部长罗伯特盖茨可能的"科学"钱从一个帐户到另一个地方。 He could shift “unobligated balances” from the operations and maintenance accounts.他可以把"未承付结余" ，从行动和维修帐户。 If worst comes to worst, he could invoke the Civil War-era Feed and Forage Act, which allows him to allocate money for the troops’ basic provisions without congressional approval.如果，大不了换个地方，他可以援引内战时期的饲料和饲料法，使他得以拨出资金用于部队的基本规定，没有获得国会的批准。
Finally, it seems the Pentagon’s war chest won’t go bare until the beginning of June.最后，它似乎是五角大楼的战争胸部不会裸露，直到6月初。 If Bush vetoes the emergency-spending bill and Congress goes on recess till mid-April, it will be an administrative hassle but not a disaster.如果布什否决紧急支出法案和国会的推移休会，直至4月中旬，这将是一个行政麻烦，但并不是灾难。
But more to the point,但还有一点， what’s in these bills 什么的，在这些条例草案 ? ？ Exactly what would they force Bush to do?正是他们会迫使布什怎么办？
The Senate bill does take out the cleaver.参议院的法案没有人拿出cleaver 。 No later than 120 days after the bill’s enactment, the president “shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq,” with “ the goal of redeploying” all combat troops by March 31, 2008.不迟于120天之后，法案的通过，总统"应分阶段重新部署美国军队从伊拉克撤出， "同" 的目标，重新部署"所有作战部队，由2008年3月31日。
Even so, there are some loopholes.但即使如此，仍存在一些漏洞。 First, there are those two words I’ve italicized above: The March 2008 deadline is put forth as not the requirement but rather “the goal.”第一，有两个词我已经楷体字以上： 2008年3月的最后期限是提出不要求，而是"目标" 。
Second, the bill allows “a limited number” of combat forces to stay “that are essential for the following purposes: (A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.第二，条例草案允许"数目有限"的作战部队留" ，是必不可少的，用于下列目的： （一）保护美国和联军的人员和基础设施。 (B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces. （二）培训和装备伊拉克军队。 (C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.” （三）开展有针对性的反恐怖主义行动" 。
Force-protection, infrastructure, training, counterterrorism—these missions could justify keeping at least 50,000 American troops in Iraq for a long, long time.部队保护，基础设施，培训，反恐怖-这些任务，可以保持至少50000名美国军人在伊拉克进行了一段很长的时间。
The clear intent of this provision—and this is true in the House bill as well—is not so much to end the Iraq war but to return to the course that US commanders were taking late last year, before Bush ordered the “surge” in force levels and shifted to a more active counterinsurgency plan.明确意图，这条规定与这是真的，在众院法案为善良，是不是这么多，以结束伊拉克战争，但返回过程中，美国的指挥官们采取在去年年底之前，布什又下令"潮"部队人数和转移到一个更积极的反叛乱计划。
Iraq 伊拉克 Section has more related reports 科更多相关报道 Help keep RINF going..有利于保持rinf去..Comment on 'Listen Up, Mr. President' : 评论'倾听了，总统先生' ：
Related News: 相关新闻：
