Why is Bush now saying "BENCHMARKS WERE TOO HIGH!" when he helped to SET them?

Question

Dude: I'm pretty sure that my question says, "helped" and doesn't in any way imply that Bush was solely responsible. I could be wrong, but since I wrote it, I'm probably not.

Daniel: I'm not asking you to make a decision about the benchmarks. I'm asking why Bush helped to set them and is now saying they were too high. That has nothing to do with whether or not they WERE; I'm asking why Bush is acting like he'd never heard of any of this before.

Why can't people READ????

Daniel: Still not the point. Want to try again?

Daniel: STILL not the point, but thanks for showing what you are.

Answer 1

Because now he wants to also set the results through the pentagon.
Who ever heard of an agency being audited by the GAO getting the ability to revise and rework the findings?
He claims partial progress should result in an 'accomplished' rating.

Answer 2

Well I think the problem was, in how the GAO was ordered to evaluate the benchmarks.

They were told to use a all or nothing system.

IE:

Either the benchmark was met 100% or it was considered as not being met.

So if a benchmark was met 98%, it would still be seem in the GAO report as not being met.

And people are now pointing out, just how the GAO was ordered to measure.

I don't think anyone expected the Iraqi's to meet all the benchmarks by sept 15th.

But to make signifciant progress towards them.

The GAO report, leaves out any significant progress.

Both parties are going overboard about the report.

The right for critising it so harshly, when its not the only report due.

The Left for citing that report as the dinfinitive report on the benchmarks.

When both parties know, it is just one report among many, and none are completely showing an accurate picture.

Answer 3

Could we wait until the actual report is made, not just leaked info about a few parts of Gen. Patreus report before we are asked to decide this stuff? If the reports bad, I'll be the first to write my congresswoman and ask she step up and pull some of our troops home. But I don't want to make a stand on something that was leaked a few hours ago.

edit: What benchmarks weren't met? Which ones were set to high? Which ones should have gotten done but haven't? I don't know this stuff. Does anyone know all 18 benchmarks?The only one I know of is they needed to set up an oil program, which according to the leak the Iraqi government did not. I can't base an opinion on what's to high or fair if I don't have all the facts. Maybe Bush has a point, maybe he just blowing wind. I can't say Yea or Nay to this without knowing some of this.

edit: Fine! Bush stinks! How horrible, oh man, so ill informed am I but still, Bush stinks! Bunch of crud man! What does he mean they're to high? He made them! Along with Katrina and hurricane Dean! I am so mad, oh what the heck? This is so wrong! AHHH! I hate it! I hate it! He's horrible!

Is that what you'd prefer? Cause apparently if I don't bash Bush, then I'm missing the whole point of this question.

Answer 4

Why does anyone listen to anything Bush says at this point? I've lived long enough to see nine Presidents. Bush II is by far the worst one which is quite a feat after Nixon.

He's consistently lied about everything to do with his personal war with Iraq. His administration has been the most incompetent and corrupt in perhaps the entire history of the U.S. They tried to impeach Clinton for a sex scandal, but it's okay to violate the constitution, put our troops in harms way, steal two elections with voter fraud in Ohio and Florida, illegally wiretap Americans, funnel billions of dollars to Haliburton, torture prisoners, allow people to die as a result of Katrina response... need I go on? This guy just isn't a first class moron, but he's a world class ******.

We should be ashamed as Americans to have tolerated these last 7 years. Some folks still haven't awakened yet. I'm still amazed that anyone can support this guy; even hard core Republicans. He's an embarrassment to our country.

Answer 5

Bush thinks benchmarks are the impressions left on his as$ from his chair when he stands up.
Like most of his defenders on this post he has a hard time with comprehension of simple questions.
In all honesty the benchmarks were just a stalling technique used to buy time when it became clear that the majority of the US citizens were in favor of troop withdrawl. So until he gets his precious oil law in place (which is why we are in Iraq to begin with) we are in for another song and dance. By the way the oil law was one of the bench marks and it's main purpose is to give US oil companies the right to legally export much of the oil and profits from these fields for up to 35 years under what are called “production sharing agreements.

Answer 6

Well first of all Bush does not understand the concept of Benchmarks. Secondly the benchmarks were really set by the republican party due to the fact Bush can not run our goverment by his self. You can say that Bush was just a "yes man" in his second term.

Answer 7

The Democratic Congress had the largest influence and input into these benchmarks. Bush didn't support putting in many of these benchmarks. Nice try, but it won't work. Go find someone who is not paying attention.

Answer 8

I wondered that when he created "No child left behind" I think is main Benchmark is to spell cat his logic is KAT. Go figure..

Answer 9

Because he is afraid that failed benchmarks with give the democrats some cover so they can grow some cohones and end his deadly little Gi Joe Game

Answer 10

Look at how many times he changed his justifications for going to war in the first place.
And yes if he thought they were set to high to begin with why did he sign it?