This is welcomed progress. It’s imperative that Congress sets a deadline to get the troops out of Iraq safely and as soon as possible, and address the what next. The U.S. isn’t going to withdraw from the international community when combat troops exit Iraq. Senator Kerry has long advocated a plan calling for a deadline and diplomacy.

Here’s a great photo from today’s press conference.

I want to note here that NPR yesterday (or perhaps on Monday) reported that the newest supplemental funding request includes a request for an addition 3500 troops for Afghanistan and inserted discreetly throughout the bill, requests for what amounts to another 6000 new troops for Iraq, that would be in addition to the 21,000 already requested for the surge.

I haven’t seen that noted elsewhere in MSM though I haven’t looked too hard for it.  Anyone else hear or see anything about that?

It will still be tough to pass this resolution, but they are so much closer than when Senator Kerry and 12 brave Senators stood for setting a deadline about 9 months ago. I remember that Senator Warner then told Senator Kerry that timing is everything- I hope the timing will be right now for a few Republicans to vote for this.

The reasons given for this amendment are exactly those laid out by Senator Kerry last year - he was the one with the right timing. Had President Bush accepted the Senators plan, we would nearly out of Iraq by now and with any luck the recommended diplomatic initiatives would have led to a better situation.

It would be nice if the other Senators gave Senator Kerry more credit, but the important thing is that this is moving forward and has gained strength.

Too bad that the resolution does not include a firm deadline (as recognized by Kerry in a short blurb I heard on NPR) and that we need to wait 120 days before withdrawing.

But it is a clear progress compared to what exists and clearly a challenge to get nearly all the Democrats united on a statement for withdrawal.

And in the meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the Iraqi government has already failed to meet the timetables and requirements that the administration presented to Congress months ago:

The Bush administration, which six months ago issued a series of political goals for the Iraqi government to meet by this month, is now tacitly acknowledging that the goals will take significantly longer to achieve.

In interviews this week, administration officials said that the military buildup intended to stabilize Baghdad and create the conditions for achieving the objectives would not be fully in place until June and that all of the objectives would not be fulfilled until the year’s end.

A “notional political timeline” that the administration provided to Congress in January in an attachment to a letter from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had called for most of the objectives to be met by this month.

[...]

A Pentagon assessment of progress in Iraq through the end of last year, submitted to Congress on Wednesday, notes that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki “has promised to reform his government, beginning with his cabinet and the ministries,” but that none of those steps had yet happened. It cited the “passage of a framework” last month for sharing oil revenues among Iraq’s ethnic groups as a modest sign of progress, but notes that the last two months of 2006, before Mr. Bush announced his new strategy, “saw little progress on the reconciliation front.”

[...]

In interviews, officials said they expected most political progress to be months away. The slower pace of progress puts the administration in a difficult position, at a time of growing Congressional criticism of the new strategy, which starts with an increase of more than 20,000 American troops.

The slowness of political progress, officials say, could indicate the need to extend the time the new troops remain on the ground in Baghdad and its suburbs. Congressional Democrats are seeking passage of legislation that would impose a 2008 deadline for withdrawal of American troops, and they are calling for evidence that political benchmarks are being met.

Mr. Bush has told Congressional leaders that such American demands are part of “a culture of seeking instant results,” officials who have met with him said.

[...]

Administration officials have never rescinded the “notional timeline,” though the Iraqi government had already missed most of the deadlines by the time Ms. Rice gave it to Congress in January. That document listed political achievements that Washington expected would be fulfilled between September 2006 and March 2007; with the exception of the oil law, which awaits final passage, most have not been achieved. American and Iraqi officials had agreed on the notional timeline back in October.

In interviews, Bush administration officials said that the House proposal was too rigid. “The arbitrary setting of deadlines is counterproductive,” a senior administration official said Wednesday. “We need to see that they are progressing,” the official said, but added that “we don’t think rigid deadlines are appropriate.”

The Bush administration officials would agree to speak about the so-called benchmarks only on condition of anonymity, because of the politically delicate debate about whether the United States should be imposing deadlines on the Iraqi government. Indeed, even using the words “deadlines” or “timetables” has become politically treacherous.

[snip]