Proving that there are those on the Left who are not complete anti-American surrender monkeys.

Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements -- and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

Personally, I prefer a reauthorization without a timetable – which telegraphs strategy to the terrorists – but can accept one that is, as this editorial suggests, made up of non-binding goals that are designed to meet the needs on the ground in Iraq not at the ballot box in 2008. But to put the ideology of the extremists and the greed of the porksters above the expertise of those tasked with carrying out the policy is absurd – and the editors at the Post are correct for condemning it.

A pity that the DemocratICK majority in the House lacks such wisdom.

MORE COVERAGE AT WaPo & NYTimes