NYT reports BUSH TO SET NEW 'TARGET DATES' IN IRAQ WAR

[jefferson_dem]

According to sludge, with silly flashing siren in effect ---

PAPER: BUSH TO SET NEW 'TARGET DATES' IN IRAQ WAR
Sun Jan 07 2007 20:01:01 ET

President Bush's new Iraq policy will establish a series of political, economic and military benchmarks that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet, the NY TIMES is planning to report in lead headlines Monday.

MORE

Bush is expected to refer to the benchmarks in a much-anticipated speech this week outlining his new Iraq strategy. The specific benchmarks, to which the Iraqi government has agreed, will later be spelled out and made public along with target dates for meeting the objectives, the paper will report.

[eleny]

1. But he said benchmarks were a bad idea

Flip flopper! :rofl:

[walldude]

3. No it was timetables that were bad..

Benchmarks are not timetables, they're benchmarks. :eyes:

[eleny]

9. I should have had a V-8!

[JohnnyLib2]

5. No he didn't, and Tony Snow will let us know that.

:evilgrin:

[tridim]

7. "Now David, I'm not going to play semantics with you. Next question." n/t

[eleny]

10. !

:crazy:

[Tuesday_Morning]

2. Target dates? Benchmarks? A time table? Oh, goody

Here's a snippet from the Official Annotated Timelines-Benchmarks-Timetable-Schedule Timeline from October 2006

http://www.1115.org/2006/10/30/the-official-annotated-timelines-benchmarks-timetable-schedule-timeline/print/

So “(they) have committed themselves to a timeline” and “the benchmarks that they have committed themselves to” has mysteriously morphed into a schedule without benchmarks. We have a schedule, and now the first step is to persuade them to work in concert to develop some benchmarks. We have clear agreement about what dates something will be achieved by. We just have no idea what that something is going to be.

[Akoto]

4. And my thinking on this is ...

These 'benchmark dates' will be pushed back, and back, until they finally just don't matter anymore. It will seem like a capitulation to the new Congress at first, when the administration most needs it, but then ...

[Bitwit1234]

6. OK so are the Iraqi leaders to dip their fingers

in purple or red ink.....and will the republican members of congress sturt around the floor of congress and show theirs like they did when the Iraqi voted. Give me a break.................

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. "And if the benchmarks are not met, he threatens to waste more lives and $$ there."

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. And if they don't meet the benchmarks?

Aw, hell. We'll stay and do the dirty work for them, 'cause they love freedom.

[Bobbie Jo]

12. Exactly...and if there aren't any

Or Else(s)included in this "plan," then it's just stay the course...part II.

[Spazito]

13. Hmmm, where have I heard that before.....

'Benchmark' Strategy
Bush's latest rhetorical tactic is unlikely to win over dissatisfied voters

By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 1:33 p.m. MT Oct 25, 2006



The only way to achieve victory in Iraq is to set “benchmarks” for the new Iraqi government to meet (a better army, an end to sectarian violence, an equitable distribution of oil revenue, etc.). That said, we can’t unilaterally impose those "benchmarks," because Iraq is a sovereign nation. On the other hand, our patience is not “unlimited,” and it could reach its limit if the Iraq government doesn’t make “tough decisions.” In any case, “Americans can have confidence that we will prevail.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15416773/site/newsweek/

or was it here:

Bush's Proposal of 'Benchmarks' for Iraq Sounds Familiar


The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."

That response left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down. For example, the original war plan envisioned the U.S. troop presence in Iraq being cut to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Last year, some top U.S. commanders thought they would be able to significantly cut the U.S. troop level in Iraq this year -- a hope now officially abandoned. More recently, the U.S. military all but withdrew from Baghdad, only to have to have to reenter the capital as security evaporated from its streets and Iraqi forces proved unable to restore calm by themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html

[jefferson_dem]

14. DU thread with link to NYT story here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2679298&mesg_id=2679298