in the interest of full disclosure, here's the rest of the words...reid, levin and durbin go into more detail about "benchmarks"...



UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ ACTGetting Answers to the American People on the War in Iraq – Mission NOT Accomplished For too long, the Bush administration has failed to lay out a clear strategy for success in Iraq to the American people. Their rosy statements about the progress of the war are not matched by the conditions on the ground. In their few appearances before the Congress, the Secretaries of Defense and State have failed to answer the most basic questions about our progress in the war or provide even the simplest benchmarks by which the American people could measure our progress. Democrats are offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that holds the Administration accountable for its actions and requires it to present a real plan for success. DEMOCRATS OFFER THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT ABOUT THE WAR: Our troops and their families deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people for their service and sacrifice. The Administration has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down. Democrats believe we should see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006 so that our troops can begin coming home. We also believe the Iraqi people must understand that the U.S. military will not stay in Iraq indefinitely; they must achieve the political stability necessary to defeat the insurgency. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MUST PROVIDE A PLAN: It is essential that the Bush administration submit an unclassified strategy for success in Iraq to the Congress and the American people specifying how and when our troops can begin coming home. An Assessment of the Bush Administration’s Actions to Achieve Progress in Iraq. The Bush administration must provide information on its efforts to convince Iraq’s communities to make the necessary compromises for a political settlement; efforts to engage the international community to help stabilize Iraq; efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s government ministries; efforts to accelerate the delivery of basic services; and efforts to train Iraqi security forces so those forces can protect Iraq on their own. An Assessment of the Compromises Made by the Iraqi People to Achieve the Broad-Based and Sustainable Political Settlement. An Unclassified Report to Congress and the American People. The Bush administration has classified most significant information about their Iraq war plans and kept that information from the Congress. The President should submit to the Congress and the American people an unclassified plan for success in Iraq. We deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress we are making. This report should also include: The number of Iraqi battalions that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations The number of Iraqi special police units that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in policing The number of regular police that must be trained and equipped The ability of Iraq’s Federal ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct and coordinate Iraq’s security forces The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions. A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.







###

WRONG

The lying bit of Rancid Tallow, Harry Reid; The Despicable Wench, Nancy Pelosi; and the Cowardly Wimp, Murtha spewed out demands for arbitrary timetables that had no correlation with the mission or purpose. Worse yet, these demands were to be imposed on Iraq without consulting with the new Iraq government. They merely pulled a timetable out of their diaper and hoped the ignorant would bite.

Furthermore, Prs. Bush HAS layed out the definition for success, the incompetent (or are they colusive) press just thinks that if they keep askng the question and ignoring the answer, people will believe them. Which I guess in your case, it was true.

The difference is, Prs. Bush today talked about benchmarks based on assessments of the war by Gen. Abizaid and other leaders in country.

Now, where I will agree with you is that, while Prs. Bush has set down the mission and policies, the execution hasn't always been successful. But guess what, that is war. How the mission and policies will be carried out also isn't the job of the Commander In Chief. That is the job of the Pentagon and the commanders in country.

The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions. A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions. A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

This statement does not disprove ParaTed2K's statement.

The lying bit of Rancid Tallow, Harry Reid; The Despicable Wench, Nancy Pelosi; and the Cowardly Wimp, Murtha spewed out demands for arbitrary timetables that had no correlation with the mission or purpose. Worse yet, these demands were to be imposed on Iraq without consulting with the new Iraq government. They merely pulled a timetable out of their diaper and hoped the ignorant would bite.

he contended (along with the punditry) that democrats including reed, whom he calls a "lying bit of rancid tallow" said that their benchmarks were timetables, that were fixed and not condition based. i certainly showed that not to be the case.

also, earlier in their piece, it discusses their plans being shared withthe iraqi's ...

We also believe the Iraqi people must understand that the U.S. military will not stay in Iraq indefinitely; they must achieve the political stability necessary to defeat the insurgency.

The Bush administration must provide information on its efforts to convince Iraq’s communities to make the necessary compromises for a political settlement; efforts to engage the international community to help stabilize Iraq; efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s government ministries; efforts to accelerate the delivery of basic services; and efforts to train Iraqi security forces so those forces can protect Iraq on their own.

The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions. A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise

If you can demonstrate that any war has ever been fought by these arbitrary requirements, I'll take them seriously. By these demands we lost WWI and WWII because the troops aren't home yet. Futhermore, even if there are "estimated dates for redeployment" this would be classified, since only a total moron tells the enemy of future troop movements or plans.

your argument is not germaine ted. my article is merely recognizing the fact that democrats were calling for similar "benchmarks" that the president endorsed today. but when democrats suggest anything, they are just called names.

if you want to debate how every war in history has been fought, then that's another article. feel free to write it, and maybe i'll respond.

last week you screamed at me that nancy pelosi's "priority" (and that she had said) was impeaching the president. the opposite was true, and you failed to even acknowledge that. then you failed to explain how you would defend yourself if you wre declared an enemy coatant and had no habeas corpus rights. you called it a red herring even tho it was THE point of the whole article.

here, i'm guessin you won't acknowledge that your statement was wrong. the democrats did offer sim. "benchmark" ideas a year ago, and were called names for it. you can't just say that and move on, can ya?

instead, i expect a further tirade of strawmen and red herrings in an attempt to reshape the debate with some "gotcha" ya got up your sleeve.

.