Listen Up, Mr. President聽取了主席先生，
Two myths have sprung up around the House and Senate bills that require President Bush to withdraw US forces from Iraq.兩個神話，湧現出圍繞美國眾議院和參議院的法案，要求布希總統撤回美國軍隊從伊拉克撤出。 One is that he would have to pull out all the troops.其中一個是他將不得不撤出所有軍隊。 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.另一種可能是，如果布什否決最終法案（因為他幾乎可以肯定會這麼做） ，戰爭及其他一切軍事活動-將停頓下來，離開軍隊駐紮在損害社會安定，缺乏基本的彈藥和物資。
Both myths are false, the product of spin.這兩個神話是假的，這種產品的自旋。
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.五角大樓已通過多種方式變更金錢如行使否決權鎖緊急支出法案在臨時蓮步而國會接著復活節休會。 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.和參眾兩院法案留下餘地相當多的美軍士兵留在伊拉克無限期地-雖然屬實，將有不到的是，現在有，他們將演出較少雄心勃勃的使命。
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，眾議院版的條例草案提供了一個政治-軍事戰略，對伊拉克說，白宮可能做好學習的好榜樣-作為一般的做法，如果不是在其所有的細節。
First, let’s deal with the consequences of a veto.首先，讓我們處理這個後果的否決權。 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.美國國會要求撤軍只是章節大得多的條例草案，以提供96000000000美元在緊急支出為在伊拉克的軍事行動和阿富汗。 A veto would kill not only the language on withdrawal but also the $96 billion.否決權會殺死不僅是語言上撤出，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.美國政府官員引用的時候，克林頓總統否決了共和黨國會預算和眾議院議長金里奇走開了，迫使聯邦政府關閉-一連串的事件，在政治上敗壞了共和黨在長遠之計。 Officials warn that the same thing will happen to the congressional Democrats if they force Bush to shut down the war.官員警告說，同樣的事情發生，給國會的民主黨人，如果他們迫使布什關閉戰爭。
That’s not going to happen.這是不會發生的。 A story in today’s edition of一個故事，在今天的版 the Hill 山 outlines several ways the Pentagon could still get funds to the troops.概述了幾種方法，五角大樓還可以得到資金的歸宿。 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could “reprogram” money from one account to another.任國防部長羅伯特蓋茨可能的"科學"錢從一個帳戶到另一個地方。 He could shift “unobligated balances” from the operations and maintenance accounts.他可以把"未承付結餘" ，從行動和維修帳戶。 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，大不了換個地方，他可以援引內戰時期的飼料和飼料法，使他得以撥出資金用於部隊的基本規定，沒有獲得國會的批准。
Finally, it seems the Pentagon’s war chest won’t go bare until the beginning of June.最後，它似乎是五角大樓的戰爭胸部不會裸露，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.如果布什否決緊急支出法案和國會的推移休會，直至4月中旬，這將是一個行政麻煩，但並不是災難。
But more to the point,但還有一點， what’s in these bills 什麼的，在這些條例草案 ? ？ Exactly what would they force Bush to do?正是他們會迫使布什怎麼辦？
The Senate bill does take out the cleaver.參議院的法案沒有人拿出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.不遲於120天之後，法案的通過，總統"應分階段重新部署美國軍隊從伊拉克撤出， "同" 的目標，重新部署"所有作戰部隊，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，有兩個詞我已經楷體字以上： 2008年3月的最後期限是提出不要求，而是"目標" 。
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，條例草案允許"數目有限"的作戰部隊留" ，是必不可少的，用於下列目的： （一）保護美國和聯軍的人員和基礎設施。 (B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces. （二）培訓和裝備伊拉克軍隊。 (C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.” （三）開展有針對性的反恐怖主義行動" 。
Force-protection, infrastructure, training, counterterrorism—these missions could justify keeping at least 50,000 American troops in Iraq for a long, long time.部隊保護，基礎設施，培訓，反恐怖-這些任務，可以保持至少50000名美國軍人在伊拉克進行了一段很長的時間。
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.明確意圖，這條規定與這是真的，在眾院法案為善良，是不是這麼多，以結束伊拉克戰爭，但返回過程中，美國的指揮官們採取在去年年底之前，布什又下令"潮"部隊人數和轉移到一個更積極的反叛亂計劃。
Iraq 伊拉克 Section has more related reports 科更多相關報導 Help keep RINF going..有利於保持rinf去..Comment on 'Listen Up, Mr. President' : 評論'傾聽了，總統先生' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
