As promised President Bush yesterday vetoed the Iraq War supplemental funding, which defined timetables by which the U.S. would begin withdrawing combat troops as early as October. While timetables were an indefensible position for the president and nearly half of Congress, ‘benchmarks,’ on the other hand could be an idea everyone can get behind. But is this anything more than semantic quibbling?

The Washington Post explains that benchmarks may show up in the next round of legislation as clearly defined steps the Iraqi government should take toward a political settlement. If they don’t, the likely punishment would be cutting off nonmilitary aid. The Post says it’s a deal Bush should go for.

However, Democrats are disputing the Post’s reporting that they have already given up the push for troop withdrawal timetables (see The Horse's Mouth).

Arianna Huffington suggests the benchmarks are part of the same old wait-and-see tactic that’s keeping the U.S. indefinitely engaged in Iraq.

Clifford May says that benchmarks, while potentially useful, could tie the hands of Gen. David Petraeus if their too inflexible.

The New Republic explains why America’s good cop/bad cop routine may be the most effective way to demonstrate that it’s patience with Iraqis is not unlimited.