McCain says he'll propose benchmarks for Iraq

CNN ^ | January 26, 2007 | CNN

[IntelliQuark]

Sen. John McCain, a leading advocate of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, said Thursday he'll try to blunt the impact of proposed Senate resolutions opposing a buildup with a new resolution of his own.

McCain, an Arizona Republican, said he will propose benchmarks for Iraq's government to meet as part of the new push, and he also will seek to increase congressional oversight of the war.

"One of the areas we really want to work on is setting some benchmarks, so the American people and Congress will know if we're making progress or not," McCain said.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I think he forgot "Wheras, the power to make these decisions lies with the Executive Branch;"

[CitizenUSA]

bnelson44 wrote: "That's it, period. I think I could support this. Can't we all?"

Sounded pretty reasonable to me. I didn't see anything about benchmarks in his proposal, unless I missed it.

[PhiKapMom]

McCain is not President or Commander in Chief and has no right nor does the Senate to tell a foreign country what they need to do!

Maybe we should send the Senate their duties under the Constitution along with what the President's duties are. There is a reason for three branches of Government!

[PhiKapMom]

I could certainly support what you have just typed -- short and to the point!

[Soul Seeker]

The Idea McCain has EVER been strong on the war is a myth.

No one that supports the war goes about publically and privately using every means at their disposal to undermine the SOD's ability to do his job or makes a spectacle of protection for terrorists. I'm just curious how long people are going to continue to spin the lie he EVER had a plank of being strong on the war and terrorism.

Yet again have another example of the traitor's capitulation and desire to run the Globe from his Senatorial office without benefit of constitutional authority. And yet we're very bad little conservatives for actually saying let the Dems can win if the RINO sychphants push him to taking the nomination. I am not voting for this weaselly two faced control freak responsible for the Maverick chorus that legitmized the judicial filibuster, enshrined terrorist protections and restrained free speech illustrating the politicians deficiencies during election time.

And, for the record, I am not one bit shocked the fool appears now. He's right on cue. Just when it looks like some weaselly Reps might get a clue, McCain arrives to lift them up so they can screw us again. Gang of Fourteen Lives again. I was frankly expecting it. That's why I'm holding certain bloggers to their promise NOT to support the Senatorial committee for Republicans and these Republicans apart of this. If they capitulate to these RINO's they are no better.

[TYVets]

Let's wait for the bill to be submitted and read it. (if it really is submitted).

Let us hope that all McCain wanted was his 20 second sound bite.

His ideas and legislation are a detriment to the country.

[bnelson44]

Draft of the bill is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774245/posts?page=15#15

[bnelson44]

bencharmarks are here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774245/posts?page=15#15

[Jaxmum]

Whereas, Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including:

(1) Deploying a "significant number" of new Iraqi security forces to partner with U.S. units in securing Baghdad;

(2) Assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in a "timely manner;"

Significant number, timely manner are not concrete terms, they are wide open to interpretation. I think he is trying to make something that Dems and Republicans will both think is a good idea. But, each for different reasons.

[seekthetruth]

"McCain is not President or Commander in Chief and has no right nor does the Senate to tell a foreign country what they need to do!"

I will not support McCain or any other Republican candidate who does not show support of President Bush and our military! Go Duncan Hunter!

[bnelson44]

Well, since it isn't a binding resolution, that really doesn't matter.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I heard Sen. Pete Domenici say this morning that if the "surge" isn't successful within 1 year, that we would need to basically pullout (either actually doing so or moving some troops out and the rest out of harm's way in other parts of Iraq).

Bush has said that merely our patience with the government isn't unlimited, and not our occupation. There may only be a handful of Senators who agree with that.

[IntelliQuark]

"McCain is not President or Commander in Chief and has no right nor does the Senate to tell a foreign country what they need to do! "


BINGO!

Maybe the Iraqi government can pass a resolution of what they think the US Congress should do. How would they like that?!

[rogue yam]

About the ONLY reason to consider voting for McCain for Prez would be his support of the war to date.

There is NO reason to support McCain for any office. He is utterly unprincipled and untrustworthy, no matter what he says on any subject.

[PhiKapMom]

I am so tired of the grandstanding Senators, I could scream. Never was a McCain fan and hope and pray every candidate who does not support the President and the troops falls by the wayside as we move forward in this election cycle.

How about a Rudy/Hunter ticket or Hunter/Rudy or Hunter for SecDef? Right now they seem to be the only two candidates standing firm behind the President and our troops unless I missed something.

[dirtboy]

I think Tancredo and Romney have been supportive of the troops and the war effort, but I could be mistaken.

[CBart95]

One more time on McCain:

HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks! I knew Romney was waffling earlier and I hadn't seen anything from either one that I could put my hands on right away. Guess I will now go look.

Just knew that Hunter and Rudy had come right out with support.

[PhiKapMom]

From the Romney site:

Governor Mitt Romney on Iraq
Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6400

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

[PhiKapMom]

Press Releases :: January 10, 2007

Carlos Espinosa 202.226.6997


Tancredo Comments on Bush Iraq Speech

( Washington, D.C. ) – Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today said in response to President Bush’s speech:




“Few, certainly not I, would disagree with the President's well articulated goal of a peaceful where the seeds of democracy can grow. I was also encouraged by his stated commitment to a November deadline for the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for its own security,” said Tancredo, Member of the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee.




“The bigger question raised by the President, however, is whether an increased American military presence in Iraq will aid us in winning the global war against radical Islam -- and I am not convinced that it will,” concluded Tancredo.