Did the President know about these things? Did he agree to them? Just who was the genius that set them?|||The GAO took the benchmarks from the law passed within the last funding bill, which was agreed to by Bush, and signed into law by him. So for anyone to say the Congress made the benchmarks too high is to completely ignore that these were the agreed upon standards, and not some that came out of thin air.|||Well, who was it that set the GAO benchmarks?
...Congress...
And which party is in control of Congress at the moment?
...the Democratic Party...
And which party will stop at nothing to get back into the White House?
...same answer...
go figure...
One interesting tid bit is that NONE of the DNC presidential candidates will give a number for how many troops they will pull out of Iraq or when they will do so if they are elected... most of them say that at least 20,000 troops will be left in Iraq no matter who we elect next November... even the top DNC leaders know that pulling out, cold turkey is about the worst idea anyone ever had... the anti-Iraq stance the DNC has taken is a facade; they just want the White House back...|||Another case of blame the messenger?
Why have benchmarks at all if you set them so low that they have no meaning? The GAO is apolitical and independent. Its not them, its the truth, just because neither you nor the president likes the results doesn't mean they were too high, they just weren't met.
If they had been met no one would have said they weren't set high enough. Its just bad news. Be a grown up and deal with it.|||troops home tonight|||Bush and Congress set the benchmarks. There's a new article that says the GAO is being asked to re-write certain parts of the report before it's released to the public!
I can't find it now but here's what an earlier story said:
The 69-page draft ..is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. ..a government official ... feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con鈥?/a>|||Of course he knew about them.
And really, who says they were too high, except Bush and the rest of his flunkies?|||The GAO benchmarks were set by Bush, who agreed in his January speech describing the "surge" that the Iraqi government should abide by them. And that if they didn't abide by the benchmarks, that US forces would begin to redeploy out of Iraq.
Now Bush is changing his mind and saying that his own benchmarks were too difficult to achieve.
Dumb...dumb...dumb...|||Bush didn't complain about them before they were agreed upon by HIM! If they are too high why didn't he say something before? Why did he agree on them in the first place?|||In reply to "Ryan F" (above), Congress set the benchmarks, but it did so when it was still a Republican-controlled body.|||This is just another case of mr. bush being dishonest with the public. Of course he knew about them. Why this would surprise anyone is beyond me. He AGREED to the benchmarks.|||Well, if it were left up to the Republicans and George W. Bush, there wouldn't be ANY benchmarks. Heck, they'll be done when they're done. Why rush the Iraqi government and the rebuilding of Iraq? I mean, it's not like our troops are over there dying, right? Oh, you mean they are? 3735 American troops have died since 2003. That's an average of 830 per year.(3735 over a 4.5 year period) How are we to know if Iraq, the Iraqi people, military and government are making ANY progress at all if we don't set bench marks?!!? Who DIDN'T set bench marks? That would be the REPUBLICAN Congress, the REPUBLICAN Senate and the REPUBLICAN President, George W. Bush.|||Bush knew about it--and made no objection.
Not that it matters. The "surge" is a complete failure andevryone knowsit. Bush would have tried to change the standards HE proposed--which is essentially what this is--no matter what when it became clear this was jsut more of his "stay the course" BS.|||Good question. Why wasn't there discussion of the impossible goals beforehand. Why did they wait until the goals were not met to say they were impossible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment