How come so many people are so worked up about benchmarks

[pnwmom]

that probably would have just been ignored or twisted by Bush anyway?

Honestly, what difference would the benchmarks have really made -- in practical, real-life terms? It's not like we can trust anything Bush does.

Asking a proven liar to "certify" that progress is being made in order to continue getting funding? What a joke.

And the benchmark that called for Iraq to privatize its oil industry deserved to be condemned -- as Kucinich did -- not approved.

[Egnever]

1. Because we want some sort of accountability

Bad enough that we are funding this war through emergency supplementals that have little to no accounting of the cash but doing so with absolutely no accountability for it at all is unacceptable. How long will you be content to let bush go completely unchecked?

[pnwmom]

4. But my question is still: how would this have checked him?

He's a proven liar. He'd be happy to certify progress even if it weren't true.

[Erika]

2. Having family members in the service makes a difference

as to the importance of "benchmarks". Especially if they are on their third tour. We now have kids over their on their third and fourth tours but Bush can't even come up with benchmarks and Pelosi and Reid allow him to get away with it? They should resign. The sooner the better.

[pnwmom]

5. I would believe in benchmarks if I thought they were enforceable.

But I don't see how they would be, because all they require is that Bush, the liar, make a certification. What would that accomplish, really?

[JDPriestly]

3. Because it is the least that the Democrats could have done

to stop the senseless dying and suffering.

[pnwmom]

6. But how would benchmarks that Bush could lie about or disregard, the

way he does everything, stop the dying?

It seems as if we were pinning everything on a pipedream; that Bush could "certify" something and we would believe him.

[JDPriestly]

8. Because if the Democrats show strength and set benchmarks

we can elect a Democratic president in 2008. If the Democrats do not show strength on this issue, they indicate that they are weak. People will not trust them with the presidency or leadership. We lose and can never change the course of this nation. The key is not whether we can make Bush do what is right but whether the Democrats themselves can do what is right -- just because it is right. It is important to do what you really believe is right.

[Ben Masel]

7. The real agenda for the Dems

The real agenda for the Dems was the domestic spending. The benchmarks provide a figleaf, so they can claim to have imposed accountability, after promising it in the first versions of the supplemental.