David Swanson: They're Not Benchmarks

[Hissyspit]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22389

They're Not Benchmarks
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-05-11 16:00
By David Swanson

The new war money bill passed by the House on May 10 does not include even a nonbinding end date for the war. It does fund the war for a shorter period of time at one shot, but the Senate doesn't like that idea, and the bill must be reconciled with whatever the Senate passes. So, what's left in the bill that Bush doesn't like? Benchmarks!

But there are two problems with this. Bush DOES like them. And they're NOT benchmarks. A benchmark is a standard of excellence against which other items are measured. Or it's a measure of progress toward a goal. The so-called benchmarks in the House bill are nothing of the sort.

Here's the relevant section:

"SEC. 1710. (a) BENCHMARKS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, fifty percent of the funds appropriated by this Act for assistance for Iraq under the headings `Economic Support Fund' and `International Narcotics and Law Enforcement' shall be withheld from obligation until the President certifies to the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that the Government of Iraq has—"

Then the bill lists five (count em!) so-called "benchmarks," starting with:

"(1) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;"

- snip -

This is ludicrous. The majority of Iraqis have already backed ending the occupation. A majority of the members of their current parliament have signed a bill to end the occupation. And we're going to threaten to end the occupation unless they hold elections and act like a democracy? Is this a benchmark against which we'll measure episodes of Monty Python? Or in what sense is this a benchmark?

- snip -

Oh, great, we're also going to threaten to leave unless they undo destructive laws that we imposed on them. Of course, we'll tell them what the new laws should be. But they'll still have a democracy, because – don't forget – we've already demanded that they hold local elections. But who will get the contract for the vote-counting machines? These are our much vaunted BENCHMARKS. This is how the Democratic Party is "standing up to" Bush and Cheney. Let's face it. The Iraqi government is better representing the wishes of the American people in this matter right now. The following groups and organizations want to end the occupation:

The Iraqi Parliament
The Iraqi people
The active-duty US troops in Iraq
The American people

MORE - READ IT ALL

[EFerrari]

1. K&R

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[Rydz777]

3. "Benchmarks" are a fraud

because they are intended to be deceptive. Bush is already - oh, so graciously - signaling his willingness to accept them. Timetables and deadlines are what are needed. The Jim McGovern (D-MA) bill which got 171 votes in the House was a move in the right (meaning correct) direction, but these benchmarks are a retreat toward futility.