Timetables and Benchmarks are becoming overused Washington!

It just seems to be moving at a snail’s pace constantly in that White House. Due to our direct concern to funding our military, our Democratic and Republican leaders are both stubborn and unaware of how to agree on making “timetables” and “benchmarks” for this Iraq (and Afghanistan) War.
In this morning’s New York Times, an article was printed about the moderate Republicans warning at a meeting on Tuesday to Bush on his Iraq policy, following his rejection of last week’s House bill proposed by the Democrats.
The House bill would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, about $53 billion, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.
Bush and his officials feel that two-month payment stages are inadequate.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty in funding when it comes to two-month cycles, so we reject that idea,” Mr. Bush told reporters during a Pentagon visit. “I’ll veto the bill if it’s this haphazard, piecemeal funding — and I’ve made that clear.”
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.
Later on Today, another New York Times story came out that Bush insisted at meeting today that he was willing to work with lawmakers to include benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government in a war spending bill, which is something members of both parties have been vigorously seeking.
To me it just seems like there are too many scenarios being suggested to the president and his administration, ever since the Iraq Study Group came out with that book.
At least the Associated Press had this to say about the President’s idea of agreeing on benchmarks:
A dozen or so members in Congress are attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise. Few have come forward with concrete plans - perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.
That really made things clear to me, unlike the New York Time’s or the Washington Post’s handling of this story. All they basically said was reverberated what they heard at the press conference without any journalistic, or deeper insight to this ongoing story.
If you read the New York Times or the Post’s stories, they are almost the exact same thing, overplaying quotes by Bush, which clutter up the story.
The AP story I could understand so much more than the other ones, maybe because they are making less money due to the fact they are reporting more individualistically than following their company’s “policies”.
From the AP: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia was one of 11 GOP lawmakers who met with Bush and his top aides Tuesday afternoon.
"We asked them what's Plan B," Davis said. "We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable." Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, his current one never would have a chance to succeed.
Even the article from Reuters I can follow more easily. They have THE best lead out of the other three I mentioned :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, already under fire from Democrats over Iraq, is facing mounting pressure from fellow Republicans to show substantial progress in the war by September or risk their desertion.
It’s newer-sounding. It’s fresher, I feel.
But September is looming as a critical time because members of Congress will have returned from August recess at home and will have heard from voters in their home areas about Iraq. (Reuters)
It also marks a period in which Americans will begin to take greater interest in candidates running to succeed Bush in the November 2008 election. (Reuters)
Thank you Reuters staff writers Peter Szekely, Steve Holland and Tabassum Zakaria, as well as AP writer Anne Flaherty. You helped me renew and continue my interest on this dry subject matter. New York Times and Washington Post, take a more individualistic approach!