Bush accepts Republican House resolution on Iraq (will set "benchmarks" on "progress")

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 1/26/07 | Thomas Ferraro

[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.

[roses of sharon]

Maybe as a thankyou to McCain for jumping ugly on Levin during that hearing, he practically accused Levin of not wanting us to win.

He was ticked, and said "our troops WANT TO WIN", kind of raising his voice.

I have never heard McCain get mad at a Dem, ever. He usually saves his ire for Republicans.

The Pres probably was scratching his back a bit?

[spikeytx86]

"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."

Well setting benchmarks are a good idea. Every time we achieve a benchmark the president can say to any critics, "well look the plan is working, we are on track and are achieving our benchmarks toward victory". It would be hard for the left on both sides to chant it's a failure if we are achieving the benchmarks that were laid out. There an insurance policy in my opinion.

[Bush 100 Percent]

The main concern I have with this - is that it will give the fools in Congress a periodic grandstanding opportunity to continue to denigrate our efforts and embolden the enemy ......

They have already shown, that although they confirm the Generals and Sec of Defense, they are not really interested in hearing a word they say.

[Bush 100 Percent]

Thank You Wolfstar. I needed that "Snort" today.

[El Gato]

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

I tend to agree. Agree that is what the President was trying to accomplish. Disagree that it's a good strategy.

[Wolfstar]

There is no good strategy when all about you are busy stabbing you in the back to further their own careers. There is a reason every two-term president since 1951 has had a weak 2nd term. The 22nd Amendment created a terrible, and in times such as these, dangerous imbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches. BTW, since you criticize the strategy, what would your suggestion be if you could advise GWB?

[4integrity]

Wolfstar, I agree with you. I am sick of these "Republicans" with no courage. They are a disgrace.
As far as I'm concerned, if they are not standing with the President, who is trying to protect our great country, they are slithering with the Dims. I hope and pray the next election season brings us patriots to elect so that not one of these people are reelected. Seems they believe the liberal media equates to "the American people".

[Txsleuth]

Thank you all for your replies...I am still just reeling, and will have to think..but you all make great points.

[plain talk]

My take is this is a ploy to pull Republicans together. Bush and the Republicans need to stand together. While this particular measure is meaningless I'd like to see them working together to oppose the dems on other issues and pull the wobbly ones into the fold. If they would stand together the dems couldn't get anything signed into law.

[Gene Eric]

>> Benchmarks can be adjusted ... they are, IMHO, meaningless. Let them have their benchmarks.

Agreed. It's all about CYA anyway; the essential ingredient for a flaccid Senatorial/Congressional legacy.

[Wolfstar]

Sleuth, on my way home tonight, I caught the last part of Hugh Hewitt's show. He had Rep. John Campbell on. John is a Republican member of Congress from somewhere near San Diego. He was in the Republican House retreat session that the President attended, and called Hugh on his drive home afterwards. John gave a good summary of what the President said and did in that meeting, and GWB did not sign on to any of the resolutions. Not the House Republican one nor any of the ones Senate.

Instead, John said that the President reminded everyone that there is no option but victory in Iraq. The President told them that he understood the politics of the situation in some districts was difficult. Hugh asked John if they (Congress members) were hearing from people who supported the President, and John said no, they were only hearing from those with negative points of view.

Our side is letting the President and our troops down big time, in my opinion. And by our side, I mean those of us in the grass roots as well as a number of Republican members of Congress.

I just got home, so have not had a chance to go out to Hugh's website to see if Rep. Campbell's remarks are summarized there. You might consider checking for yourself.

[Txsleuth]

Thank you very much, Wolfstar...

I did miss that part of Hugh's show..and I will check his website.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you very much, Wolfstar...

You're most welcome. Like you, I'm very troubled by what is happening in Congress. I don't blame the President. The Executive and Legislative are two co-equal branches of our government, after all, and there is little the President can do given that the Dims are in charge.

[Txsleuth]

I heard a good question on a C-span show a little while ago...

The person wondered how anyone could think that trying to instill a democratic type government in an area of the world, among a Muslim nation....that had been operating differently for 1300 years....would be either "easy or quick"...

IOW...he wanted to know why what has been accomplished so far hasn't been CELEBRATED...rather than what hasn't been done, being used as a reason to quit.

When you ask about benchmarks...and think about the above question....just how DOES one set benchmarks for a goal that has NEVER happened??