Posted on 01/26/2007 3:15:47 PM PST by NormsRevenge
CAMBRIDGE, Maryland (Reuters) - President George W. Bush met privately with House Republicans on Friday and agreed to an alternative resolution to set "benchmarks" for progress in his plan to send more troops to Iraq, party officials said.
Conferring with lawmakers from his party, which lost control of the House of Representatives last November, Bush was confronted with their plan to hold him accountable for the revised strategy, which has been widely criticized by Democrats and some Republicans.
"He deferred to the leadership," Rep. Eric Cantor (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia said after a closed-door, question-and-answer session with Bush, who has denounced other congressional efforts to oppose his plan to send 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
"He said, 'I have faith in the leaders to craft a proposal, because I know in their hearts they want this country to succeed,"' said Cantor, House Republican chief deputy whip.
Bush has opposed earlier proposed congressional resolutions against an increase in troops, but facing broad resistance in Congress he appeared willing to go along with this one, the officials said.
During the hour-long meeting, they said Bush faced plenty of questions and concerns from those gathered for a two-day meeting on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
He reiterated his belief the United States needed to stay on the offensive, despite public uneasiness with the war.
During a brief part of the session open to reporters, Bush said, "Most people understand the consequences of failure.
"If failure is not an option, then it's up to the president to come up with a plan that is more likely to succeed."
While many of the president's lines drew applause, lawmakers sat in silence after he said that.
The White House has charged that proposed bipartisan Senate resolutions opposing Bush's plan could undermine the war effort.
The House Republican resolution, which may be offered as early as next week, calls for the creation of military, political and social "benchmarks" to monitor the success of an increase in U.S. troops, and hold Bush and Iraqi government accountable.
It also calls for creation of a bipartisan congressional panel to monitor implementation of the benchmarks.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the new Democratic leader of the House, opposes the proposal.
Rope-a-dope?
20,351 people have signed The Pledge thus far. Will you?
If you haven’t signed the pledge yet, now’s your chance.
http://www.thenrscpledge.com/
During a brief part of the session open to reporters, Bush said, "Most people understand the consequences of failure.
"If failure is not an option, then it's up to the president to come up with a plan that is more likely to succeed."
Fence sitters want bench marks.
Glad you posted this....I posted it on another thread..but in needs more exposure.
I would like people that AREN'T the normal Bush bashers on FR to give their opinions about what they think this means, and why he did it.
so , in the mean time,, release the hounds of War and wage it with great fervor and root out the enemy and do so with determination to get this job done well and right.
The dems and some certain pubbies do want us to win after all, Right?
I can see a bit of strategery in this,, one has to remember he is fighting enemies both foreign and domestic.
Now that they are in the open and full view for all to see, let's test their mettle. ;-)
Folks need to keep in mind also that progress can be measured in many different ways.. and is open to interpretation.
We'll see if the MSM also does a better job reporting successes as well as they do failures daily as we secure the peace. Knowing their track record however, don't count on it.
Benchmarks can be adjusted ... they are, IMHO, meaningless. Let them have their benchmarks.
Think about it.
A non-binding resolution that establishes general and broad benchmarks that could be adjusted if situations on the ground warrent it.
Meaningless....
Look at McCain's proposed bill with benchmarks.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/early-draft-of-mccains-iraq-resolution.html
It really doesn't hold anyone's feet to the fire. It doesn't restrict our troops. And it shows support for them.
If the Legislative branch wants benchmarks, let them have their benchmarks.
Okay....I see your point.
I read it as running out the clock. He is buying time for the strategy to work. As long as they are debating language on benchmarks, with his own party supporting him by making those benchmarks individual items that are easy to achieve, and the Dems wanting to define the benchmarks to be "that all Iraqis sit together exchanging kisses and handshakes a minumum of 4X per day" . . . as long as the debate strings out, the calendar moves.
That's the key. Bush wants time for Petraeus to work.
Meaningless....
we agree.
See post #8...see what you think.
btw, I flunked strategery 101, so don't quote me.
NCLB still baffles the heck out of me. ;-)
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the President signed on to the least damaging resolution in hopes of heading off a full-scale cave-in by cowards in his own party. This way, the congressional Reps have some political cover with their constituents back in their districts. And the Founders thought Congress was the best protector of the Republic. Snort!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.