-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
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 withdrawal1 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 we're already seeing signs of progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded up more than 700 people affiliated2 with Shia extremists. They've also launched aggressive operations against Sunni extremists. And they've 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 stabilize3 the country, rebuild the economy, and advance the work of political reconciliation4. 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 restrictions5 would handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility6 they need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And these restrictions would substitute the mandates7 of Congress for the considered judgment8 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 imposing9 such an artificial timetable would be disastrous10.
Here is what Secretary of Defense11 Robert Gates recently told Congress: Setting a fixed12 date to withdraw would "essentially13 tell [the enemy] how long they would have to wait until we're gone." If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify14. A contagion15 of violence could spill out across the entire country, and in time, this violence would engulf16 the region. The enemy would emerge from the chaos17 emboldened18 with new safe havens19, 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 rigid20 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 can't have it both ways: They can't 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 leverage21 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 opposition22, 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 strings23 and without delay. If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it.
Thank you for listening.
END
1 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 affiliated | |
adj. 附属的, 有关连的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 stabilize | |
vt.(使)稳定,使稳固,使稳定平衡;vi.稳定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 reconciliation | |
n.和解,和谐,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 flexibility | |
n.柔韧性,弹性,(光的)折射性,灵活性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 mandates | |
托管(mandate的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 imposing | |
adj.使人难忘的,壮丽的,堂皇的,雄伟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 disastrous | |
adj.灾难性的,造成灾害的;极坏的,很糟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 intensify | |
vt.加强;变强;加剧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 contagion | |
n.(通过接触的疾病)传染;蔓延 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 engulf | |
vt.吞没,吞食 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 chaos | |
n.混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 emboldened | |
v.鼓励,使有胆量( embolden的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 havens | |
n.港口,安全地方( haven的名词复数 )v.港口,安全地方( haven的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 rigid | |
adj.严格的,死板的;刚硬的,僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 leverage | |
n.力量,影响;杠杆作用,杠杆的力量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 strings | |
n.弦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|