Mr Howard said he had assured Mr Bush that his Government had no intention of scaling back Australia's military presence in Iraq in the near future.
"In our discussions I made it very clear to the president that our commitment to Iraq remains," he said.
"Australian forces will remain at their present levels in Iraq, not based on any calendar but based on conditions on the ground.
"Until we are satisfied that a further contribution to ensuring that the Iraqis can look after themselves cannot usefully be made by the Australian forces, they will not be reduced or withdrawn."
It was possible that over time the role of the Australian troops in Iraq would shift more towards training, Mr Howard said.
The first time President Bush and prime Minister Howard met was on September 10, 2001, a day before disaster struck and killed almost 3,000 people in New York and Washington.
Prime Minister Howard:
"As a consequence of that meeting and the horrific events that horrifically followed the (next) day, the paths of our two countries have been parallel in so many ways in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world."
Our allies are determined to stand strong, as Bush will and with the recent progress being seen in Iraq, the Democratically controlled Congress and Senate will not have the votes needed to try to force withdrawal.
In the meantime Bush's senior advisers are recommending that Bush stand pat on the strategy that has been implemented since General Petraeus took control in Iraq.
On his way out of Iraq before leaving for Australia, Bush spent time fielding questions from reporters.
“What I said today was that if Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said if the security situation continues to improve as it has we may be able to achieve the same objectives with fewer troops,'' Bush told reporters. "The first moment that there will be any discussions about troop levels will be after Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back to Washington.
"Obviously, the generals are constantly analyzing whether we have the right number of troops to do the job,'' he said. "There are ongoing discussions. I am always asking do you have you have enough or do you have too many. There are always discussions. Any announcement one way or another will be after these folks come back to report."
[...]
"But I was pleased with what I heard in terms of whether our troops recognized the necessity of the mission and whether or not they think we’re accomplishing it. Right before we left, I spent some time with the two-star general in charge of the whole operation. First of all, I was impressed by his intelligence and caliber. Secondly, he gave me a very candid assessment of what life was like when he first got there and what life was like now. He confirmed exactly what Gen. Petraeus had been telling me. That there’s a major shift on the ground and that therefore it is easier for our Marines to be on the hunt for al Qaeda.
Congress and the Senate returned from their vacation dead set for a confrontation about Iraq and they will make a lot of noise but without the votes needed in the Senate to force any time lines or stop the progress that is being seen on the ground, that is all they can do, make noise.
I see many on the left say "cut funding" but if they cannot even acquire enough votes to force a time line or date certain, then they certainly do not have the votes to cut funding.
Harry Reid and his far left liberal crowd may continue to try to deny the reality that their own Democratic politicians have come back from Iraq touting, but it only serves to show how invested in defeat that Reid and company is and how desperately they want America to fail.
I said it once, I will say it again, betting against America is a bad idea.
(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]
Wife who has lost her husband:
.
