Benchmarks for Iraq

Here is the full transcript of Bush's Iraq press conference. I had apparently missed this part:

Q: In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, Defeatocrats, or people who wanted to cut and run.So why shouldn't the American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetoric games and all politics two weeks before an election?

BUSH: There is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal.You're talking about _ when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace.I believe that's what you're referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with benchmarks.Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people of Iraq. What we're asking them to do is, When do you think you're going to get this done? When can you get this done? _ so the people themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government.

He was so close to a good answer - if he had just been able to give an example or two to give confidence in the benchmarks that might be set...

Bush: Timetable Means Defeat

President Bush said Wednesday that mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq are a "serious concern," but again refused to set a timetable for pulling out American troops.

Video here.

Bush's Iraq press conference

Just got done watching President Bush's press conference on Iraq - see some tidbits here (bias warning) and here.

I find myself at distinct odds with both the President and the Democrats on this issue, and I wonder if it's just me or not. From my personal experience in the corporate world, I have yet to see a project that doesn't have the potential to be managed well, but neither option I'm seeing considered at our highest levels is even close to ideal.

I completely disagree with the mass abandonment of Iraq that lots of Democrats seem to push for, but I also distrust Bush's refusal to put together a timeline, or at least the key deliverable gates that will determine when we shift into a next phase. And go one step further - detail how those deliverable gates fit into our overarching goals of stability and a phased withdrawal from Iraq, so that if an approach starts not to work well, we can consider adapting a different approach/timeline while driving in measurable ways toward the same consistent goal.

We deal with situations that are either decently structured or lead to dissatisfaction every day in the business world, and while that structuring does take work, it's not rocket science. If either party were to put forward a clear project plan on Iraq that meets our goals and shows how we'll measure success, they'd have my vote and the vote of everyone in my circle of influence.

On a related note, I think the members of the press that were there deserve some big kudos - I don't think I heard a single soft question. It was a refreshing alternative to other "correspondents" in the media.