Senate Republicans stand firm and block the Democrats attempt to force troop withdrawal

The only Republican that broke ranks and voted with the Dems was Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon. WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq. Go to Complete Coverage » The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation. [...] The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. Good work Senate Republicans blocking the Democrats proposal. Setting a set date for withdrawal is like giving the terrorists a date after which they can do whatever they want. It's like Aussie Prime Minister Howard had said about a possible presidential Democratic victory in '08: "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Whatever date we set for withdrawal, I'm sure the terrorists' calendar would have a big circle around that date. But cheer up Democrats. Your party finally did a couple things right. They finally had an original idea, and they actually tried to enact policy based on that idea. Sure it was about as wrong an idea as they could have possibly come up with, but at least it's more than the pointless anti-Bush blather that they usually rely on.

Aussie PM John Howard rips Barack Obama

It's put up or shut up, and John Howard has been a staunch ally and understands what's at stake in the GWOT and in Iraq. So he gets to make comments like this. National Post - In a rare intervention by a foreign leader into U.S. domestic politics, Australian Prime Minister John Howard ridiculed a proposal by Mr. Obama to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 13 months. Mr. Howard's unexpected criticism of Mr. Obama -- an underdog candidate to win his party's presidential nomination -- stunned Democrats even as U.S. conservatives joined the attack on the Illinois senator's dovish foreign policy views. "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr. Howard told an Australian broadcaster. I wonder if Obama will put that on his campaign bumper sticker? UPDATE @ 11:56am: This story has gone around the world and back again and everyone's got an opinion. Obama responded to Howard's remarks... "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." As far as I'm concerned those 1400 could simply be cooking meals over there and it's still notable and as a nation we ought to be thankful. Or we can be like Obama and look a gift horse in the mouth. You decide... Howard won't take that lying down and he of course refuses to retract any part of his statement. What I have done is to criticize Sen. Obama's views on a particular issue, and I don't retreat in any way from that criticism," Howard said. "I think if America is defeated in Iraq that will be catastrophic for the West and it will have tremendously adverse consequences for Australia." Howard, who trails the opposition Labor Party in his re-election bid this year, criticized his opponents as being hypocritical. "Apparently it's all right for people in the Labor Party to regularly criticize the Bush administration's policy on Iraq -- and they do that almost on a daily basis," Howard said. "Yet my criticism of the policy position of somebody who is not president -- and is not even the Democratic candidate for the presidency -- that is interfering in American politics and is absolutely to be forbidden." Can't disagree with that. If you disagree and/or hate George Bush, that's fine. Speak your mind, no one will judge you. Of course if you agree with him you're an idiot. Expect to be shunned.