ubertuber

Benchmarks are better than timetables for all concerned, save the President.

Whether we leave this week or next year, the Iraqis would benefit from us achieving at least a couple of tangible goals.

Congress gets to look like they care about the issue rather than humiliating the president.

Most of all, benchmarks would mean that for continued funding, President Bush would have to make a case for progress going down a bulleted list. If there's progress, so much the better for the Iraqis, the troops, and for us. If there isn't, the media glare will be far uglier for Bush than anything a forced withdrawal would have accomplished.

Ace, the case I would make for continued funding with strings is the old standby:
"you break it, you buy it". To me, the idea of doing the damage we've done without setting viable structures in place is pretty repugnant. In that vein, I'm not all that interested in President Bush's proposal of more of the same, without strings, benchmarks, or expiration. There's a reason the corporate world doesn't function that way.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam