In The Princess Bride, after hearing Vizzini say “Inconceivable!” once too many times, Inigo Montoya tells him, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Similarly, Republicans keep talking about “benchmarks” for Iraq. I don’t think it means what they think it means.
President Bush and congressional Democrats don’t agree about much when it comes to the Iraq war, but one of the areas where they disagree the least is the need to measure the Baghdad government’s progress.
That makes the issue ripe for negotiation in an evolving veto struggle over the war, even though the administration and its critics are fiercely at odds when it comes to how — and whether — to enforce these so-called benchmarks for self-defense and democracy in Iraq’s post-Saddam Hussein era.
No matter how encouraging this may sound, war supporters’ use of the word “benchmark” is not consistent with any kind of meaningful definition of the word.
Indeed, yesterday, Tony Snow was asked why the administration wouldn’t at least consider “political benchmarks with consequences, given that there has been so little, if any, progress politically from the Iraqis.” Snow rejected the notion out of hand: “[I]f you set a political benchmark with penalties, that would imply that you have a timetable, that you have certain deadlines.”
Heaven forbid.
What we’re left with is the exact same notion Republicans have been using for over a year: “benchmarks” that are little more than suggestions.
It’s not any better on the Hill. The WaPo reported that Republican leaders in Congress believe that negotiations on a post-veto spending bill “should begin with benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and possible consequences if those benchmarks are not met.” Sounds great, right? Yes, right up until you see what they mean.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took a similar tack. Boehner “believes members and the administration can and will discuss benchmarks as a way of measuring progress and holding the Iraqi government accountable, and that’s where members need to start,” said his spokesman Kevin Smith. He added that “tying benchmarks to withdrawal dates or deadlines are a non-starter,” but he did not rule out consequences for Iraqi government inaction.
What, exactly, is the point of establishing a benchmark if nothing happens when the target is missed? Boehner’s office says tying benchmarks to troop withdrawal is a “non-starter,” while the White House says tying benchmarks to any kind of penalty is unacceptable.
So, we’re right back to the old joke about the unarmed policeman seeing a criminal and shouting, “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”
Look out, Maliki government. Republicans want to see results — and if they don’t, they might write a tersely-worded op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. You don’t want that to happen, do you?