Here's one important way that I think we need to frame the emerging John Warner GOP-Senate proposal on Iraq, which "would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Iraq" for unmet benchmarks, rather than setting up a timeline or pulling back the troops.
This punishes the troops, by keeping THEM in Iraq even while pulling back money that is supposed to make them safer.
All versions of "benchmarks" that seek to "punish the Iraqis" without pulling back U.S. troops have a fundamental illogic to them. Whether it is resources for reconstruction, aid to the Iraqi military, or any other economic aid, the main rationale for all of this money is to create a safer environment -- either politically or militarily -- in Iraq.
The Republican benchmark bill acknowledges that Iraq is not safer and pulls back money while doing nothing to protect the troops who are still stuck in the same unsafe place.
"I think the reconstruction money has shown to have been mishandled and a large part of it has probably been wasted," said Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., who was expected to back the measure. "I think before we send in more money ... we should make sure it's been spent well."
Think about this. Sure the money has been mishandled. But Republican hypocrisy leads to Senators like Gregg saying we should stop "wasting" money, but not stop expending young soliders' lives in the same place. He won't waste any more money on Iraq, but he'll continue to waste young men and women's lives.
This is where the demagogic, deceptive rhetoric from the Republican right on "defeat" and "surrender" leads: to half-baked, half-reality based schemes which exhibit, in fact, a shocking disregard for the well-being of our troops. So much for Republican "moderates".