In the most recent report on political goals for Iraq, it appears that 15 of 18 benchmarks set by the US Congress have been met:
On page 8 of the Washington Post’s news section today, we learn that, according to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq has met all but three of the 18 original benchmarks set by Congress. The only three that have not met are (a) enacting and implementing laws governing the oil industry (though it’s not clear why formal laws are necessary), (2) disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and (3) making the Iraqi police more professional.
The Post hastens to add, however, that other recent assessments find that Iraq has failed to achieve “many of the goals that the Baghdad government and President Bush said would be reached by the end of 2007.”
This would seem to compare with progress on the political goals that the Democratic Congress set for itself in 2006. Remember its “Six for ‘06” proposal made in the summer of 2006:
Six for '06
Congressional Democrats believe America should work for everyone — not just those at the top - by building opportunity and prosperity for all, and guaranteeing real security at home and around the world. We know that Americans can work together to meet the serious challenges facing our country, create a stronger nation, and build a safer world.
With a firm commitment to honest leadership and tough budget discipline to end record deficit spending, we propose a legislative agenda — A New Direction — that unites rather than divides our country. Beginning with our goal of an America that strives for the common good, these are our legislative priorities in the 109th Congress for a New Direction.
1. Real Security at Home and Overseas
Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed Bush Administration policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world. Require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq in 2006. Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda. Rebuild a state-of-the-art military capable of projecting power wherever necessary. Implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission proposal to secure America's borders and ports and screen 100% of containers. Fully man, train, and equip our National Guard and our police, firefighters and other first responders. Honor our commitments to our veterans.
2. Better American Jobs — Better Pay
Prohibit the Congressional pay raise until the nation's minimum wage is raised. End tax giveaways that reward companies for moving American jobs overseas.
3. College Access for All
Make college tuition deductible from taxes, permanently. Cut student loan interest rates. Expand Pell Grants.
4. Energy Independence — Lower Gas Prices
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.
5. Affordable Health Care — Life-Saving Science . . .
6. Retirement Security and Dignity . . .
THE WRONG DIRECTION
The policies of the Bush Administration and the Congressional majority have taken the country in the wrong direction, making us less secure and putting the privileged few ahead of the common good. . . .
4. Rising Energy Prices
Gas over $3 per gallon; growing dependence on foreign oil; billions in new subsidies for oil and gas companies despite record profits; blocked efforts against price gouging; opposed energy efficient technology and alternative fuels.
Here is the Speaker Pelosi's page that claims success for some of the New Direction proposals promised in "Six for '06":
First minimum wage increase in 10 years
9/11 Commission recommendations to screen all air cargo and overseas port cargo, improving communications between first responders
Tough rules to establish highest ethical standards in Congressional history
Most sweeping lobby and ethics reform in a generation, hailed by reform groups as “landmark reform” and “a sea of change”
Pay-as-you-go budget discipline restored to end six years of deficit spending
Fiscal discipline that produces a balanced budget by 2012
A comprehensive Innovation and Competitiveness agenda to double basic research & development and reinvest in math and science education
Emergency funding to support and equip troops, including tripling Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Iraq
Tighter rules against foreign investment that weaken national security, after the Dubai Ports scandal
Reduction of backlog on passports after 9/11 requirement through hiring boost
Benchmarks and progress report required on Iraq
Emergency assistance to protect children’s health coverage . . .
The reduction in gas prices and increase in energy independence promised by Congress are some of the noteworthy exceptions to its somewhat spotty record of accomplishment.
I don't see how any progress can be said to have been made if the government forces are unprofessional (even if the army is better, states where the army has to act like the police never improve beyond dictatorships) and the insurgents are still armed and active.
"Six for '06" was a platform and a set of goals. Nobody promised to achieve all of these goals, and such a promise would be preposterous given that that the Executive branch is controlled by the other party. In the 100-member senate, there are only 49 Democrats and two independents to form the slenderest possible majority, and Republicans have filibustered in the 110th Congress about three times more than any minority party in U.S. history. So don't be blaming Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats if a few of the goals were not met.
Also, I find it clever that you pawn off the Democrats' promises because the presidency is held by the Republicans. But remember that these promises were made as counterpoint to Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, which was advanced under adverse White House control and mostly passed, even if ultimately vetoed.
The most humorous though is the goal of cleaning up the ethics of Congress. Right now, we have the Senate chair of the committee introducing legislation to bail out the subprime market accepting a preferential loan from one of the largest ultimate recipients of that bailout, and one of the more senior members of the Defense committee apparently funneling over a billion dollars in defense contracts to her husband's company. And did I mention earmarks? I don't think that any one thought that the ethics in Congress could drop any further than they already were, but they have with the ascension of the pro-big government Democratic majorities in both houses.
I think the point that Jim is making is that some in Congress are hurrying to point out the mote in Iraq's eye whilst ignoring the beam in their own.
Remember, nobody is literally fighting to stop Congress from moving ahead on it's promises.
How predictable.
I heard on the radio this morning a report that a large number of high school students are out looking for jobs, but only about 40% of them are getting jobs.
Could this be related to the economy, the minimum-wage increase, or both?
Is it good or bad for the economy have a large chunk of seasonal labor priced out of their job?
Is this a success, a failure, or not caused by any actions of the current Congress?
And it's a sign of conservatives' anti-American views that they hold Iraq's "government" - which has no legitimacy, is controlled by foreign powers (America and Iran) and whose only concrete accomplishment is the slaughter of its own people in Sadr City - in higher esteem than their own Congress.
The lack of accomplishments by the Congress is because of the normal gridlock between political parties in a functioning democratic system: one party tries to stop the other party from doing certain things, and that's as it should be. The lack of accomplishments in Iraq comes from the fact that Iraq has no actual government and is under a foreign occupation that wrecked the country and its infrastructure. And yet conservatives prefer the Iraqi "government" and hate their own country's government. Sad.
Just Congress and 4/9 of the SC. Well, plus 1/9 of the SC half the time.
You hate 1/3 of the US government plus 4/9 of the SC too. So, I guese we are equally sad.
No, because I don't hate the American system of government. Whereas conservatives are openly saying that they prefer the Iraqi "government," a foreign-controlled government incapable of any actual governing, to the actual functioning democratic system of the United States.
The reason the Congress isn't getting stuff done is that the Republicans and Democrats have different goals, and each party can and should try to block the other's goals. If you mock the U.S. Congress for not "accomplishing" as much as the Iraqi government, you're saying that you prefer a foreign-controlled thugocracy to the American democratic system.
Obviously the Democratic candidates for the House can't make promises that bind the President (see SCHIP).
This does indicate, though, that comparing Iraqi voters and American voters might cause one to think....
Libertarians and some conservatives would presume the US Congress is better because that government is best which governs least.
I have heard that the US started to go down hill when air conditioning allowed those morons to work year 'round including DC's awful summers.
[Oh, right. The above rule does not hold when the conservative supporter of the war agrees with the reporting ... forgot that part]
There has always been only one goalpost. "Can we bring the troops home without things going completely to hell once they leave?" If yes, we win. If no, we lose.
Everything else is arguing about measurement.
That's not illogical. If you accept that the Washington Post is liberally biased, then when it reports something favorable to conservatives that's exceptionally significant.
At least here in SoCal, all the low skill jobs that would normally be handled by high school kids (fast food, supermarket, some retail) are all snapped up by illegal aliens. Proficiency in Spanish is becoming mandatory, if only to be able to communicate with the rest of the staff. English, however, is merely optional.
If I seem bitter, it's only because I am. I'm clinging to religion and guns as a result.
Then learn Spanish!
There are plenty of conceivable interpretations on both sides which lead to plausibly achievable outcomes, but getting there involves a number of extra steps in itself, and a simple ratio doesn't capture that dynamic. Perhaps we could introduce a handicap for vagueness or something to make the scores more comparable.
Yeah, I see it too.
Agreed. What Jim quotes are called "legislative agenda" and "legislative priorities": i.e. a platform of policies they want to get passed, and thus a guide to who you should vote for (or against) depending on how you feel about them. However, we happen to have this crazy thing called a democracy, so you can't pass any old law you want just because you really, really want to.
Given that I assume Jim opposes most of those priorities (at least in the way the Democrats wanted to achieve them), you'd think he'd be a little more gracious and a little less ridiculous about the fact that they were, in fact, successfully blocked.
If he wants to gloat, he should at least do it with openness and class.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.