On Thursday, I hosted Congressman Brian Baird on my weekly television programme "Viewpoint" (on Abu Dhabi TV, across the Middle East and Europe, and Link TV and Mhz Networks in the US). Baird, a Democrat from the state of Washington, has been in Congress for 12 years. He is retiring this year and his departure is a loss for both the House of Representatives and America.

There are several qualities that have distinguished Baird's work. At the top of the list are his commitments to principle and courage - qualities which have led him to tackle tough issues and to take strong stands, defying both political expediency and, at times, his own party's leadership.

These traits have clearly been in evidence in Baird's approach to the Iraq war. In the lead-up to that war, for example, he stood in opposition, arguing that it was both a mistake and a dangerous diversion that would draw attention and resources away from unfinished business in Afghanistan.

By 2006, the Democratic leadership in Congress found the courage to oppose the war they never should have supported. They began half-hearted legislative efforts calling on the administration to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

Baird, who had made numerous visits to the war zone, once again found himself the contrarian. Arguing that the US had a responsibility both to the country we had invaded and to the Americans and Iraqis who had given their lives in battle, he broke with his party and supported the Bush "surge". He did so not because he was confident in that policy's success, but because he knew that withdrawal meant certain failure fraught with danger for Iraq, the region and US interests.

Having just returned from his seventh visit to Iraq, Baird is once again challenging accepted wisdom when he proposes that the administration may need to reconsider the December 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. He argues that while the Iraqi army has made significant progress, "lethal and destabilising threats remain", and that too many lives have been sacrificed to now "squander the achievements of the past three years.... The mission in Iraq is not finished. Just as it was a m?stake to neglect Afghanistan for Iraq, we must not now neglect Iraq for Afghanistan".

Baird recognises, of course, that the US and Iraq established a timetable for withdrawal in their 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, but he notes that should the Iraqi authorities request a continuation of American military trainers or logistical support, we ought to be willing to provide that assistance into 2012 and beyond.

He notes: "Walking away from atrocities does not make them go away, and it is not conscionable morally or wise strategically.... Once a conflict begins, the costs of succeeding can be far higher than we want to pay, but the costs of failure can be far greater still."

One may not agree, but these are arguments that should not be casually dismissed.

Another issue where Baird's courage and conviction have been demonstrated is in his approach to Gaza. He and fellow Congressman Keith Ellison were the first two American officials to travel to that devastated strip following the Israeli assault in January 2009.

In his report to Congress following that visit, he spoke passionately about the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure and the suffering inflicted on the civilian Palestinian population. He called for a new American policy that not only pursues an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, but also addresses the urgent humanitarian needs of Gaza's people.

When the Goldstone Report was released, Baird once again teamed up with Ellison, this time to defend the integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone and to decry the efforts of their colleagues in Congress who were demanding that the report's findings be rejected.

Addressing the Congress, Baird said: "This is about much more than just another imposed political litmus test that we are all too often asked to perform [he then proceeded to list the atrocities he had observed] .... This is also about our own domestic security. If we are seen internationally as condoning violations of human rights and international law, if our money and our weaponry play a leading role in those violations, and if we reflexively obstruct the findings... of Justice Goldstone, it can only di?inish our international standing and our own security."

Now I must confess that while I have been in Washington for 33 years and understand the game of politics, I remain drawn to political leaders who demonstrate integrity and a passion for justice. I remember all too well when first seeing "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" how moved I was by that young senator's insistence that the truth be told and that good be done. Every time I see that movie, I am hopeful that Washington can be more like that and less like the place that it all too often is.

Every once in a while, our faith in politics can be restored: by Senator Dick Durbin standing up against torture, by Senator Russ Feingold casting a lone vote against the Patriot Act or by the courageous leadership shown by Baird.

In no way do I mean to suggest that these individuals are alone. There are more principled members of Congress (too many, in fact, to name). But what is clear, is that there are not enough of them, so that when one of these leaders leaves the Congress, it is a loss we must lament.

One final note: on his arrival at my TV studio, Baird was accompanied by the reasons he is leaving Congress, namely his five-year-old twin boys Walter and William. He is tired of travelling across the country each week and being separated from his family. So while my disappointment is great, I am so pleased for his children. They'll get their father back and some day they'll know that he was a good man who served his country well.