Congressman Bob Inglis held a press conference today to announce that he felt the heat and is now back in line with the GOP’s position on Iraq.

Honestly, we don’t have a clue if this is some sort of maneuvuer to settle down his conservative base.  A base that remains hawkish on Iraq and the broader War on Terror, but vocal on his recent break from supporting the President’s proposed troop surge.  What we do know is that we were wondering if he would capitulalte to the GOP talking points when we saw the media advisory this morning.

He did…will it work?

Inglis: Democrat’s timetable for withdrawal is unacceptable(March 19, 2007)

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) said Monday that the Democratic leadership plan to set deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq is unacceptable. The Democratic plan that would add a series of benchmarks and withdraw deadlines to a war effort spending bill was passed by the House Appropriations Committee late last week, 36-28, and is scheduled for a vote on the House floor later this week.

“Withdrawal is the Democratic Leadership’s only solution if the Iraqis fall short of the benchmarks,” Inglis said. “That’s too simplistic and too limiting of the President and the Pentagon. We should have benchmarks, but the response shouldn’t be all or nothing.”

Inglis sent a letter to President Bush on Monday, February 26, 2007, suggesting a series of “success checkpoints” by which Iraqi leaders might be held accountable for policy decisions needed for national reconciliation. (See, “Inglis wants Iraqi ‘success checkpoints’ so that surge can succeed”) Inglis is also a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) calling for reports by the President on a series of Iraqi leadership benchmarks.

“It’s logical to have benchmarks,” Inglis continued. “But those benchmarks should carry a gradation of consequences rather than and an all-or-nothing withdrawal upon failure to meet a benchmark. Pulling back to the perimeter is an obvious step between surging and withdrawal. There are other gradations that our military leaders could propose to the President.”

“To begin an immediate withdrawal upon failure of a benchmark is like writing a lease with an eviction-only remedy for a late rent payment. It sure makes sense to have a section in a lease calling for a late payment fee just before the section that calls for eviction.”

The Democratic leadership would provide the President $111 billion for the Global War on Terror — $11 billion more than requested – and add $13 billion for non-related programs. In order for the troops to receive the funding, the President would have to:

Certify to Congress by July 1, 2007, that the Iraqis had made progress toward providing for their own security, allocating their oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending their constitution. Failure to make that certification or Congressional rejection of that certification would result in withdrawal within 6 months.Certify to Congress by October 1, 2007, that the Iraqis had completed those benchmarks. Failure to make that certification or Congressional rejection of that certification would result in withdrawal within 6 months.

In any event, begin withdrawal of forces by March 1, 2008, and complete that withdrawal by September 1, 2008.

It also puts restrictions on the use of funding to deploy troops not properly trained or equipped.Inglis also objected to the “in any event” withdrawal by September 1, 2008. “How much sense does it make to tie our hands with that withdrawal date?” Inglis asked. “The circumstances on the ground in Iraq have changed at least three times since we went in—from an action against a dangerous regime, to an action against insurgents, to a civil war between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. The circumstances may change a couple of more times before we get Iraq to reasonable stability, and, who knows, the Iraqis may ultimately want us to retain a base or two.