We're teaming up with our partners at the Los Angeles Times to bring you more breaking political news and analysis as we enter the final eight weeks before Election Day.

As we transition, we'd also like to thank you for your loyal readership of this blog over the past few years. We hope you'll continue following us and bookmark our new home here.

We'd also like to welcome your feedback on the new venture. You can e-mail us here or post comments below.

Thanks again.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to headline a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak in Philadelphia on Sept. 20.

First reported by Politicspa, Obama will be at several events in Pennsylvania that same day. (John Callahan, perhaps?)

This will be the first time Obama has campaigned for/with Sestak this election cycle. Obama did not hide his support for Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary and his administration not so slyly tried to convince Sestak to drop his bid against Specter.

"We're honored that the President would do an event with Joe during his trip to Pennsylvania," Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin told Politicspa. "He and Joe may have had their differences, but they can agree that it is critical to elect a Senator who will put Pennsylvania's working families first."

(Cross posted from Pennsylvania Ave.)

It would seem quite the turnabout.

When President Obama came to Wisconsin just weeks ago, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) expressed no hesitation about appearing with his party leader.

"I'm pleased to stand with this president anytime and anywhere and defend what we've done and what we're doing," he told reporters August 16.

Fast forward to this headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Feingold to miss Obama Labor Day visit."

Feingold is one of a handful of veteran Democratic senators suddenly finding themselves in tough races as voters nationwide, even in blue states, sour on the record of Obama and his party. But Feingold's campaign explains in a new statement why he won't be joining the president at Monday's "Labor Fest" in Milwaukee.

From George Aldrich, Feingold campaign manager:

Like Wisconsinites in many areas of our state, families in Senator Feingold's hometown of Janesville are suffering in this economy, and many of these people are people Senator Feingold grew up with.

Senator Feingold is going to honor his commitment to participate in the traditional Labor Day parade in his hometown of Janesville-a town whose working people have been hard hit by this economy.

Senator Feingold will attend the same Milwaukee Labor Day event earlier in the day that President Obama will be attending. We asked if there was any way the President could shift the time of his appearance so Senator Feingold could appear with him. We understand it is not possible on this visit.

Senator Feingold was with the President in Wisconsin 3 weeks ago and looks forward to appearing with the President when he comes to Wisconsin again."

Spinning this month's jobs report, President Obama announced he would detail a package of new measures aimed at stimulating the economy next week.

"We are confident we are moving in the right direction but we want to keep this recovery moving stronger and accelerate the job growth that is need so desperately all across the country," he said.

But a staple of Republican reaction to the stream of economic indicators in the past month has been to lampoon the administration for what they had advertised as "Recovery Summer."

"President Obama's agenda represented 'change' once, but now it is time for him to change course, abandon his job-killing policies, and find himself a new economic team," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement this morning.

"President Obama's 'Recovery Summer' has ended right where it began, with Americans continuing to lose their jobs and unable to find new ones," RNC chair Michael Steele added.

In a rare move, Obama took questions after delivering his Rose Garden statement. One reporter asked if he regretted the "Recovery Summer" mantra.

"I don't regret the notion that we are moving forward, but because of the steps that we've taken," he said.

From May through August, the release points out, the jobless rate remained in the range of 9.5 to 9.7 percent.

From May through August, the release points out, the jobless rate remained in the range of 9.5 to 9.7 percent.

The White House has announced that President Obama will hold a formal news conference on Friday, Sept. 10, his first in nearly four months.

According to CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, the in-house record keeper of the White House press corps, it will be the president's eighth solo Q-and-A session. His last was May 27, when he fielded questions about the BP oil spill.

Also next week, the president will mark Labor Day in Wisconsin, and speak on the economy in Ohio on Wednesday.

The Cook Political Report has revised some of its race ratings in contests for House, Senate and governor, and none of them are good for Democrats.

Most significantly, the non-partisan political handicapper now says Republicans are poised to gain a net of 7-9 seats in the Senate, a result that would put them on track potentially to forcing a 50-50 split in the upper chamber (Vice President Biden might be a busy man for two years). That's revised up from a 4-6 seat gain.

Among the changes: the West Virginia Senate race, a special election to fill Robert Byrd's former seat, moves from Likely to Lean Democratic. Joe Manchin (D) still has strong approval ratings for his job as governor, but one poll this week showed state voters aren't necessarily sold on the idea of sending him to Washington.

The Ohio and Arkansas Senate races both moved from the Toss Up category to Lean Republican. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has not led in a single poll for some time, and in fact trails by as many as 30 points in some surveys. The Ohio contest seems to be slipping away as well, though both President Obama and Vice President Biden will be in the state next week.

More race ratings are available after the jump:

Governor:
Oregon: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up
Pennsylvania: From Toss Up to Lean Republican
Tennessee: From Lean Republican to Likely Republican
Wyoming: From Likely Republican to Solid Republican

Senate:
Arkansas: From Toss Up to Lean Republican
Ohio: From Toss Up to Lean Republican
West Virginia: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat

House:
Arizona-01: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up
Arizona-05: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up
Colorado-03: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up
Florida-22: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
Illinois-17: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
Michigan-09: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
North Carolina-11: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
Texas-23: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up
Washington-02: From Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat
Wisconsin-08: From Lean Democrat to Toss Up

Fox News host Glenn Beck did not mention President Obama at his "Restoring Honor" rally Saturday. But on his show this week he has been discussing what he calls the president's belief in "liberation theology," which he considers "Marxist."

"People aren't recognizing his version of Christianity," Beck said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday" this weekend, in which he also criticized Obama for his alleged belief in "collective salvation."

Asked about Beck's comments today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs questioned what evidence the conservative icon would have as to "what the president does or does not believe."

"The president is a committed, mainstream Christian," he said.

Paraphrasing the late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he said: "People are entitled to their own opinion, as ill-informed as it may be. But they're not entitled to their own facts."

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that 18 percent of Americans believed the president was Muslim. Thirty-four percent said he was Christian, while 43 percent said they didn't know what faith he practiced.

In an interview this weekend, Obama attributed such confusion to "a network of misinformation" about him.

Kathleen Hennessey and I reported for today's papers on Tea Party Express, a group credited in part for Joe Miller's upset win in Alaska's Republican Senate primary, and active in a number of other 2010 contests.

No other group has so been so ambitious in targeting high-profile races and pulling off primary victories. The Tea Party Express' success has come the old-fashioned way: with hundreds of thousands of dollars in political attack ads. That strategy has made it a divisive player within a movement that some believe should represent a new people-powered politics. But it's also made Tea Party Express a considerable opponent for establishment politicians.

The group has now turned its attention to the Delaware Republican Senate primary on September 14, a race featuring Mike Castle, the state's 9-term Congressman and former governor, against Christine O'Donnell, the 2008 nominee against Joe Biden.

Castle has been considered a heavy favorite, but the group is targeting him for his centrist positions.

"Castle is Republican in name only. He's not conservative," said Amy Kremer, director of coalitions with Tea Party Express. "We're going to give voters there a chance to compare and contrast their records. I think you'll see how liberal he is."

O'Donnell welcomes their support for her underfunded effort -- she said she just now has raised $250,000 total in the campaign; Castle had $2.6 million in the bank through the end of June.

"They've got a winning track record, so that's great news for us," she said. "For them to [potentially] drop six figures in a state like Delaware where the winner needs just 19,000 votes, those six figures can go a long way."

But Republican leaders in the state say the conservative group is making a huge mistake and putting its credibility at risk by backing someone they say is deeply-flawed.

"They're stepping into a race where we have the opportunity to take back what was Joe Biden's Senate seat and send a Republican to Washington," said Tom Ross, chair of the Delaware Republican Party. "The terrain in Delaware for Republican candidates is very difficult. ... It's just so foolhardy for the Tea Party Express to come in and waste their donors' money -- well meaning, conservative, grassroots activists -- when you could take that money and plow it into a state Wisconsin or a state like Washington where you have a Republican candidate who might be up only a point or two and really help make a difference."

Ross listed specific charges about O'Donnell, ranging from her lack of support for other state Republican candidates compared with Castle's decades of party-building work, to more personal accusations about her personal finances and lack of serious employment. (Some of those concerns are raised in this interview with a Delaware radio station._

O'Donnell calls Ross's comments "unbecoming" of a state leader.

"Maybe the reason why Tom Ross is pushing back so hard is because the Tea Party Express has a better win/loss ratio than the National Republican Senatorial Committee," she said.

Analysts are equally perplexed, however, by the conservative group's decision.

"On the one hand, they took out two incumbent senators. On the other hand, they did it in pretty Republican states. This is where I think going to Delaware gets a little tougher for them," said Jennifer Duffy, Senate race analyst for the Cook Political Report. "They clearly did no vetting [on O'Donnell] cause I don't think she meets their test on fiscal responsibility."

Ross remains confident that Castle will prevail in the race, and ultimately in November. But he doesn't take O'Donnell for granted, particularly with the added support of third-party funds.

"I liken an election to a football game: no matter how weak your opponent is you never want to look past it. You take all elections seriously," he said.

The first television ad of the cycle from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee signaled what the party hopes can be a life-preserver of an issue this year: Social Security.

It's an offensive that President Obama himself led several weeks ago as the party marked the 75th anniversary of the program's creation.

"Some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They're pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall," he said in his weekly address August 14.

In several races where the Democrats are playing defense, they say Republican candidates have gone too far with rhetoric on the program. In Indiana's 9th district, candidate Todd Young (R) appears in a TV ad for Rep. Baron Hill (D) saying Social Security is a "ponzi scheme."

In Arizona's 8th district, Jesse Kelly (R) called the program "a pyramid scheme."

Matt Doheny, the Republican candidate in New York's 23rd district, is quoted in a local newspaper just this week as saying Social Security is "the worst, worst, worst investment you can ever make."

Social Security has often been a boogeyman in midterm campaigns, since senior voters tend to be one of the demographics most likely to turn out. But could the issue be less impactful in a year when the economy is a paramount concern?

A Democratic strategist points to one part of the Duffy line in particular in answering that, where it's pointed out that families "could have lost 40% in the stock market crash" of September 2008 if Social Security had been privatized.

"What Social Security does is enable us to highlight the choice between going forward and back to Bush's failed policies," the strategist says. "House Democrats will be making clear: if House Republicans and their candidates have their way, they would jeopardize the economic security of our seniors by bringing back President Bush's risky plan to privatize Social Security and leave it to the whims of Wall Street."

One of the ways Democrats tie Republicans to favoring a privatization plan is by equating it for support of the so-called "Road Map" authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking member of the House Budget Committee. His plan calls for allowing workers under age 55 to invest up to one-third of their Social Security taxes in a private account.

But Ryan this week hedged on whether that plan would be pursued aggressively if Republicans win back the House.

"I wrote that as an individual in Congress, not as the ranking member of the Budget Committee," he said on a conference call Monday. "When I write budgets, those are as ranking member or chairman of the budget committee, which are done is a consensus way."

Republicans meanwhile scoff at the Democratic attack strategy.

"Seniors won't be affected by the Democrats' desperate scare tactics, but they certainly will be affected by their efforts to slash hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to pay for their government healthcare takeover," National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Paul Lindsay said in a statement. "At the end of the day, misleading attack ads aren't going to restore the permanent damage Democrats inflicted on their association with older voters."

Neophyte Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is running far ahead of any possible challenger, a bright spot for Democrats trying to prevent Republicans from seizing control of Congress in the midterm election year.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, Gillibrand, who is running for her first term after being appointed to the seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, easily outdistanced all three possible GOP challengers. Former Rep. Joe DioGuardi gives Gillibrand the toughest fight but still loses by 43% to 28%, according to the poll.

Gillbrand was a two-term congresswoman from a district near the state capital of Albany when she was appointed to the Senate by beleagured Gov. David Paterson in a surprise move on Jan. 23, 2009. Paterson -- who replaced Gov. Eliot Spitzer who was forced to resign amid a sex scandal -- saw his political base quickly evaporate and was not seeking election. Gillibrand is seeking election to a term that ends 2013.

Gillibrand should have long been a target for Republicans, who need a net gain of 10 seats to wrest control of the U.S. Senate. She is an upstate Democrat, more conservative than most of the party still centered on New York City. Even now, after more than a year and a half in office, the poll found that 39% of those surveyed said they didn't know enough about her to form an opinion.

Her ace in the hole, however, has turned out to be the GOP, facing internal splits in a year when New York and national politics should have given Republicans a boost.

Continue reading at D.C. Now

In his Oval Office address last night, President Obama pivoted from remarks on the war in Iraq to the economy, saying that because of our involvement abroad "we've not done what's necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity."

"And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad," he said.

In a series of interviews this morning, Vice President Biden echoed the president's message, arguing in one that America's ability to maintain its national security "is in fact dependent upon the economy."

"Just as we turned the page and are cooperating as Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Iraq, we should be doing the same thing on the economy," he said on CBS' "The Early Show."

Asked what the administration could do further to help the economy, Biden said it would be "a continuation of what we're doing now."

"Which is to stimulate the economy by continuing to focus on infrastructure, by giving taxes and more tax breaks to small businesses," he explained. "And I hope the Republicans when we get back will in fact lift their hold on us being able to vote on a tax cut for small businesses that is tied up in the Senate."

That echoes Obama's own call on Monday for the GOP to end its "blockade" in the Senate on small business tax cuts.

Speaking on the "Today" show on NBC, Biden also commented on Republican calls for Obama to acknowledge former President Bush's role in pursuing the surge strategy that they argue made yesterday's announcement possible.

"The question about whether or not credit is deserved, who deserves the credit for this beginning of a fundamental transition, I don't think is worth arguing about," Biden responded. "There's no doubt that the president and I both disagreed with the way in which the war was begun, how it was conducted, et cetera. But the truth of the matter is, that -- that by the end of the last administration the transition was in place, there was a political movement that was afoot. We kept on Secretary Gates, our present -- we kept on General Petraeus. We kept on a continuity here to finish the job. And that's what we're in the process of doing."

Biden later spoke at the ceremony in Baghdad marking the formal transition to Iraqi security forces.

"We have kept a promise, a promise made to the American people and to the people of Iraq by drawing down our forces to roughly 50,000," he said. "We are on track [to remove] all of our troops by the end of next year according to the agreement signed by President Bush made with the Iraqi government. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over."

Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We have now been through nearly a decade of war. We have endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we are trying to build for our nation - a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America's longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst those shifting tides. At every turn, America's men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people - Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq's Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq-one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest- it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq's future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what's at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -and hundreds of Al Qaeda's extremist allies-have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who-under the command of General David Petraeus -are fighting to break the Taliban's momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we are training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin - because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example -to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation's long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That is why we have already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We are treating the signature wounds of today's wars post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we are funding a post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II- including my grandfather- become the backbone of our middle class, so today's servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America's final combat brigade in Iraq -the Army's Fourth Stryker Brigade -journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from their families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband's embrace or a mother's kiss. Most painfully, since the war began fifty-five members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, "I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot."

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations -war -and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar - Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

The common theme as Republicans comment ahead of President Obama's Iraq speech tonight is that he should acknowledge the surge strategy he opposed as a U.S. senator is what made tonight's announcement possible.

From a speech given today in Wisconsin by House Minority Leader John Boehner:

Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy now proudly claim credit for the results. ... I want to thank President Obama for setting aside his past political rhetoric and recognizing the importance of the surge and the diplomatic agreement signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki.

From Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking today in Kentucky:

"I think we should also be thankful that another President had the determination and the will to carry out the plan that made tonight's announcement possible. You might recall that the surge wasn't very popular when it was announced. You might also recall that one of its biggest critics was the current President. One of his colleagues said the war was already a lost cause, implying, of course, that any further efforts on the part of our troops would be in vain.

"So it makes it easier to talk about fulfilling a campaign promise to wind down our operations in Iraq when the previous administration signs the security agreement with Iraq to end our overall presence there.

And Sen. John McCain, Obama's 2008 rival, wrote in the Wall Street Journal today about lessons learned from Iraq that could be applied to Afghanistan:

Whether they admit it or not, the administration's Afghanistan policy suggests they have learned some lessons from Iraq--some, but not all. We finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan with increased levels of troops and resources. The architect of the surge in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now leading the war in Afghanistan.

This strategy is good and can succeed, but it is undercut by the president's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011--no matter what conditions are on the ground. None of our military leaders recommended this approach.

The effect of this is self-defeating. The key actors are hedging their bets, making it less likely that regional powers will stop supporting the insurgency or that our Afghan partners will fully embrace the fight against corruption. Meanwhile, our enemies take comfort in knowing that fewer U.S. troops will be fighting them next year than this year.