The media is reporting that Republicans are supporting President Obama's decisions on a Iraq withdraw date and time line.  They also report that Democrats are concerned about the amount of troops being left behind (35-50,000).

I think it's time to remind folks what Republicans were saying in the past two years about ANY time line or withdraw date:

Senator John McCain February 17, 2008:
"I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide, and we'll be back, because Al Qaeda will then succeed."

Senator John McCain March 28, 2007:
"This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."

Dana Perino March 28, 2007:
"The president was "disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law." She said Congress should allow General Petraeus's mission to succeed "by providing our troops the funding they need -- not by mandating failure."

Senator John Kyl March 27, 2007:
"I can't think of another conflict in which a deadline was set in the middle of the war that one side would withdraw from the conflict," said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference. "It's a heck of a way to fight a war."

Senator John Thune March 27, 2007:
"What are our commanders in the field supposed to think?" Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said in arguing that a withdrawal date would be self-destructive and urging passage of the Cochran measure."

Mitt Romney June 30, 2008:
"I do not propose nor have I ever proposed a public or secret date for withdrawal. It's just simply wrong."  No. 2, with regards to this idea that I favor a specific date for withdrawal -- I do not. We've had, I believe since that interview that the senator quotes, we've had 10 or 12 debates. He's never raised that issue with me. He's never said, "are you for a date specific?" had, I said I will not leave Iraq until we have secured Iraq, make sure it will never become a safe haven."

Mike Huckabee December 13, 2007:
"withdrawal from Iraq would have more "serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis"


Senator Mitch McConnell March 28, 2007:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said that effectively sets a "surrender date" in the war.

"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit and re-plan until the day we leave," he said. "It's a memo to our friends, too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind."

Senator Joe Lieberman May 1, 2007
'If the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.'

President George W Bush April 23, 2007:
"I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. ... I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."

Eric Edelman July 17, 2007:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq." 

Vice President Cheney April 13, 2007:
"The...attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region."

Now the Republican leadership is changing it's tune:

Obama's plan "is a testament to the success of our troops in stabilizing and significantly reducing violence in Iraq" thanks to the so-called "surge" strategy, said House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner.

"I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant,"

Representative Eric Cantor:

"Today?s announcement makes clear that the Iraqi people can take a huge step forward in assuming greater control of their nation and future," the number two House Republican, Representative Eric Cantor, said in a statement.

Obama "deserves credit for not listening to the chorus of voices calling for a rapid drawdown of forces regardless of the consequences for Iraq, our military and the American people," Cantor said in a statement.

*************************************************************************

To my recollection, Democrats on the other hand have been pushing for a withdraw date since 2005.  President Obama campaigned on a withdraw date of 16 months from the day he took office and he repeatedly said there would be troops left behind for support.  He was accused of surrendering to the enemy.  He's yet to lie about his views or reversed his position on them -- unlike the Republican Party.

Who should you trust more?  A party that continues saying the same things, or one that changes with the wind? 

The Republican Party stood side by side with President Bush through out his terms in office with respects toward the war in Iraq and our economy (his spending) -- now they are once again backing away (flip flopping) from their so-called CORE PRINCIPLES during those times.

They are even going so far as claiming that Obama is a  Bush clone.  Newt Gingrich: There is "a Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy, which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work,"

Sorry GOP, you aren't kidding anybody.

Some bloggers are complaining that President Obama made the claim that the combat mission in Iraq would end on August 31, 2010.  They worry that he's put himself in the same position that Bush did with his Mission Accomplished sign.

I'd like to remind folks of the other part of Obama's speech today.  The victory part.

He told the soldiers they had done their jobs by removing Saddam Hussein, putting in place a government and you gave them a relatively safe nation for the Iraqi people to work with.

As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime - and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government - and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life - that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

THAT'S a VICTORY speech --  We accomplished what we set out to do!  That is why he announced the withdrawing of our troops.  If you've WON, you leave.  Just as we left after the Gulf War ended (mission accomplished) -- we should plan to leave Iraq again.

Even if Iraq starts getting violent again -- he can claim that at the time of his speech our troops were successful in doing what the mission called for.   This involvement would require a NEW mission.

He can also remind folks that 'he' warned against going into Iraq in the first place because he knew it could be a never ending war for America.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) complained to a friendly crowd at CNBC this morning that Obama's tax increases would harm the economy, and insisted the best way to raise revenue is to cut taxes:

HUTCHISON: I think we get revenue the way we've done it in the past that has been so successful in the past and that is tax cuts...Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BzbB3nCLU

You heard it here Americans -- Major Tax Cuts Create Revenue

President Barack Obama along with the Democratic Party and 3 Republican senators just passed a Recovery and Reinvestment bill giving away the LARGEST TAX CUT IN HISTORY to 95% of Americans.

I have one complaint about President Obama's speech last night.  It was about the 95% of Americans getting a tax cut.

First he tells us,

"Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut - a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st."

Then he tells it a little differently,

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.  In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families.  And these checks are on the way."

Which is it?  I happen to know it's a payroll tax cut; but I'm sure many Americans are expecting a tax rebate like we've gotten in the past.

He shouldn't have used the words, "Checks are on the Way."   I'm sure many will start to question where there rebate is, just watch.

Political pundits are making it a 'big deal' that President Obama will be changing his, get out of Iraq, date by 3 months.  They are also acting outraged by Obama's plan to leave a residual force behind in Iraq.  I think maybe it's time to remind them of what Obama actually said during his campaign.  The following is from Obama/Biden's website during the campaign:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

I really don't see where talk show hosts think Obama is backing away from his promises.  Not having all the facts before you (just being a presidential candidate), I think Obama did a pretty darn good job of getting both the date and the residual force left behind plans --on target.

I would also like to remind those critiques that there are currently over 170,000 troops in Iraq.  Leaving behind 50,000 makes that more than a 2/3rd cut in forces there.  While nobody wants troops there at all, this has got to make our military folks and their families 'very happy'.  They not only get to keep the area secure (protecting what they went their for), they will finally have more time to spend with their families.

Karl Rove, the political brain trust of former President George W. Bush, told Northwest suburban Republicans they can win back the state if they don't rip the party apart in the primaries early next year.

"The people are looking closely at the quality of candidates you put forward," Rove said. "You better not claw yourselves up and bloody yourselves up and cut yourselves up in a primary."

That is crucial, Rove mentored at a Schaumburg fundraiser, because the time is ripe for a GOP comeback in the statewide 2010 elections, or a potential special Senate election, given the arrest of Democratic former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and scandal surrounding Democratic Sen. Roland Burris.

"It strikes me that you have a pretty easy message," Rove told the several hundred attendees at the Schaumburg Marriott. "If you want change from the way things are then you ought to elect yourself a Republican governor."

Republicans in Illinois 'had' their chance and blew it already Karl.  When Gov. Blagojevich was impeached for corruption and when Democrats allowed Senator Burris to be included in the Senate, Republicans had an open door to the governorship of Illinois.  Illinoisans were furious, some still are about those actions by the Governor and Senator Burris; but in 2010, it will be all about the voter's pocket book Karl; You "the architect" of all people, know that.

You win an election by using the voter's shame of their previous leadership, fear of losing money/benefits or by using voter's fear of being physically harmed.

The only reason George W Bush won (by the skin of his teeth) the Presidency in 2001 was because of Bill Clinton's impeachment and your campaign pushing the idea to the younger generation that they wouldn't have any retirement when they retired -- if social security wasn't privatized soon.  The reason your team won again in 2004 was because voters still feared being attacked by the enemy and trusted republicans more to keep them safe.  It's also pretty common for voters to not like changing administrations midstream.

Perhaps if the economy hadn't tanked, national security would have continued to win out; but this time around it will be the money issue that gets the voters.  If the economy is doing better Democrats will benefit from it.  Not only because it is better, but because the GOP went on record as refusing to support the Recovery and Reinvestment plan (stimulus).  They even went so far as to refuse to give unemployed workers an extension of benefits during the worse economic crisis America has seen since the depression.

So Karl Rove -- you are wrong.  It won't be about scandals, it will be about the pocketbooks of Americans.  The GOP had best jump on the band wagon now or risk losing even more members of Congress in 2010.