WaPo Endorses Congressional "Oversight" -- As Long As It Isn't Really Oversight

[babylonsister]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/fred_hiatts_edi.php

WaPo Endorses Congressional "Oversight" -- As Long As It Isn't Really Oversight
March 13, 2007 --

This is pretty artful, it must be said. Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial page today somehow managed to endorse the idea of aggressive Congressional oversight over the war -- while simultaneously advocating that this oversight contain absolutely no penalties, consequences or repercussions of any sort. From the editorial:

The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge."...

Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraqi government's progress on those benchmarks. By Mr. Bush's own account the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political progress. If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered. But aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls.

So Congress should "rigorously monitor" the Iraqi government's progress and practice "aggressive oversight" over the White House -- as long as this oversight contain absolutely no accountability or consequences of any kind. If goals aren't met, the "military strategy should be reconsidered." But by whom? By Bush, obviously. WaPo can call this "oversight" if it wants to, but that simply isn't what the word means.

On this score, note also that the Post is slamming the House Dems' plan for having enforceable benchmarks -- again, for demanding accountability and consequences. Tellingly, WaPo leaves out an inconvenient detail: That the benchmarks proposed by House Dems are similar to ones Bush proposed himself in his speech announcing escalation. In that speech, Bush laid out goals he said the Iraqi government should meet, and added: "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced." The main difference was that the Bush approach offered no repercussions or penalties should the Iraqis fail to meet them.

Because unlike Bush, Dems are insisting on consequences for the failure to meet benchmarks -- something that, yes, could lead to a pullout -- WaPo derides them for hatching a "trick." But this isn't a trick -- it's called "oversight." Real oversight -- not the mere theatrics of it.