Are we all clear on the differences between 'benchmarks' and 'timetables'?

[bigtree]

Bush's 'benchmark' strategy
What's a beleaguered Republican candidate to do?

Howard Fineman
MSNBC
17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Remember Al Gore’s mysterious “lock box?” Well, I have a new item to nominate for the Museum of Inert Campaign Rhetoric: “Benchmarks.” The president says that they are the keys to victory in Iraq. But if I’m a struggling Republican candidate — buffeted by winds of anger and confusion over the war — I’m not sure “benchmarks” will insure MY victory on Nov. 7.

The Iraq war is all but overwhelming every other topic on the table right now, which is why George Bush took the mid-term election campaign to a press conference in the East Room. He had two goals. One was to concede the obvious: that, though “farmers are farming” and commerce is expanding, Iraq is a bloody mess. The second goal: to assure voters that he has a plan to win.

So let me see if I understand the plan. He’s not for “staying the course,” of course, which would be head-in-the-sand and Captain Queeg-like, given how “tough” the situation is.

On the other hand, we dare not “cut and run,” for that would mean our defeat. Nor can we even set “artificial timetables” for withdrawal, for that would lead to our defeat, too. (Left often, I suppose, is the possibility that some REAL timetables would be okay.)

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.”

Got that?


article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15402030/


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[bigtree]

1. .

:kick: