http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I think benchmarks are a preferred way to go over phased withdrawals and this seems the obvious consensus way to go... but I suppose it wouldn't be as likely had the Crats not pushed for something more extreme.
The only question seems to be what kind of benchmarks. I'm hoping for something in the middle of the Crats and the White House... I'm fond of carrots and sticks being used together, not just one or the other.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

The think the first bill was just typical politics. They have to look like they have a hard line, even if there's no way the bill will ever pass. Symbolic crap. But that's DC. Like always, there will be a compromise that makes everyone unhappy. But both sides will claim victory. God love 'em.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I love the administration approach to benchmarks: Let's have them, but let's have no penalties for failing to meet them, only rewards for successfully doing so. Once again, the administration demonstrates its congenital opposition to even the most rudimentary forms of accountability.

I'm all for positive reinforcement. But given that we're already pouring money and blood into Iraq, there has to be some negative reinforcement as well. Otherwise the Iraqi government can do absolutely nothing and nothing happens: They still get the money and blood.

I really wish the world worked the way Bush thinks it does. "If you run this business well and make it successful, you'll get a $10 million bonus! If you run it into the ground, you'll have to make do on your $2 million salary."

__________________
Man up.

Raytri has a valid point. The White House's approach is not very stringent and rigid and does leave a tremendous amount of room for latitude (as far as we know). In a sense of delegation, it's not a very good policy and is substantially Swiss. However, I'm pretty certain of the reason for this policy which I'll explain in case one of our members is not aware. Whether the reasoning trumps the crude nature of the policy is up to you. I think it is.
Basically the reason why Bush and his staff did not introduce a much more definitive policy in dealing with Iraq is because they ruled out the option of failure. Since they've ruled out the option of failure, there is nothing in writing that would make it necessary for our troops to leave and the whitehouse to unpreventably declare defeat. So this is really just words on paper. We will not punish the Iraqis, making it harder for both of us to succeed, but we will hold them in some way accountable for failure by establishing goals. I don't like Bush all that much but the notion that this campaign has no choice but to succeed, I agree with. Despite the fact Bush's lousy decisions and policys have impeded the successful progression of this campaign, he is not giving it any new chances or conditions of/to defeat. So the question remains that we presently can't lose the war but can we win it? Theoretically yes, we can win. But it's my opinion that not having a more sizable army has hampered this campaign since after the Iraqi Government's defeat in '03. Can we win this war without deepening the Army's ranks? I don't have an opinion on that but it is my opinion that more manpower is the key to the road of a quicker and easier success.

__________________
I'll never Forget. To pull You Closer is to Pull You Down. Ignorence can be an envy. Applaud us as the old American Power goes quietly into the night.

The Iraqi Council said they planned to take off two months this summer. The administration gave them a loud "hell no" in response. I'll be interested in how this turns out. If they don't take it and go back to work then at least we know we have some power and are willing to use it. If not then we might as well leave them to their own devices. Two months? What, do they think they're French?

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

but they're an independant country, so they can take as long as they want, right?

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

I totally support the war, but at the same time, I completely disagree with this statement. We are there as peacekeepers while the country gets on it's feet. However, there's only so long you can mooch off "free police." I don't see a problem with benchmarks, as long as they're realistic. I also support the notion of cutting off financial aid to Iraq if they don't meet some benchmarks of their own. This whole business about them taking an extended recess irks me. They can do that once everything has quieted down, and we start withdrawing.

Instead of the Commucrats and Demopublicans sniping at each other, within this bill, they need to be putting more pressure on the leaders of Iraq. Funny, but I don't really hear much of that going on, in the MSM.

I have no problem with cutting financial aid as long as it doesn't discourage progress. The Iraqis are going to basically owe us their souls if we win this thing and will have to pay us back some real royalties.

__________________
I'll never Forget. To pull You Closer is to Pull You Down. Ignorence can be an envy. Applaud us as the old American Power goes quietly into the night.

The US destroys the Iraqi country and then decides that Iraq owes?

per the original article

I say we up the charge as long as we are there, and once we leave then they get more/all of their own revenues, as an incentive for them to get off their lazy asses and get their deuce together. -OR- So the world wont see it as though we are outright stealing their oil revenues, give it (or most, minus the cost of us maintining a presense and compensation for fallen Americans' families) directly to the countries that need it most in the form of aid.

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King