With the president’s veto of the Surrender in Iraq Act, (and the failure by the House to override the veto) Congress can now get to work on a funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Associated Press describes the conundrum in which the Democrats now find themselves, capturing the main question of the next month nicely:

The president won’t sign a bill that contains a firm deadline for troop withdrawals–even if those withdrawals are only triggered by the failure to achieve certain benchmarks. He will argue–rightly–that any such mandates hamper the effort to fight the war on the ground and impinge on his prerogatives as Commander in Chief. Yet such provisions would constitute the bare minimum that many liberal Democrats will require in exchange for their support the legislation. So if Democrats try to go without GOP support, they would be pursuing a very high-stakes confrontation with the president. Therefore, Democratic leaders are likely to do what they have been signaling: win over some Republican support for benchmarks, creating a bipartisan majority to deliver the bill to the president’s desk. The big question is to what degree such benchmarks will be mere guidelines, and to what extent they will be mandatory. If Democratic leaders play their cards right, there’s a surprising range of Republicans willing to discuss goals ‘with consequences.’ Roll Call notes that Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, Adam Putnam, and Roy Blunt are all among those that have endorsed the concept: