Senate Passes Iraq Appropriations Bill With Pullout Date

Ugh.
Only two Republicans, Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith, voted in favor of it. Neither a surprise. Oddly, neither McCain nor Lindsey Graham voted. It wouldn’t have mattered if they did, but still. The most important issue of the day, and they’re not in attendance.
Pretty frustrating.
Some reactions. First up, Joe Lieberman talking (before the vote) about Harry Reid’s (and the rest of the Democrats’ ) assertion that peace will come in Iraq after an American withdrawal:

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Next up, some common sense advice on how the decision to withdraw should be made from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari:

Mr Zebari said the bill was “part of the politicking, basically, in Washington, and this has been damaging in fact to the security, political development, not only in Iraq, but in the entire region”.
He said a decision to withdraw US troops “should depend on conditions on the ground”.
“The moment that Iraqi forces, security, military, are self-reliant, capable of standing on their own, defending their own country, providing security, then definitely there would be a way for the troops to leave.”

“Let’s listen to the commanders on the ground” is something the Democrats pay lip service too, but they’re usually not interested in doing so as evidenced by Nancy Pelosi missing a meeting with General Petraeus and Harry Reid talking about how he’s not going to listen to Petraeus if he says anything positive about Iraq. These people don’t see Iraq as a problem to be solved so much as a means for political victory.
Yet look at how simply the Foreign Minister states our objective in Iraq. As soon as Iraqi forces are ready to take over we can leave. We’re not that far away from completing our objective, yet the Dems are willing to let everything we’ve worked for in Iraq come crumbling down just because they want to embarrass their political enemies.
Finally, here’s the official reaction from the Iraqi government:

“We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,” Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press…
“Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over,” al-Dabbagh said. “We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.”

Wondering which “side” is considering which “alternatives to the political process” after this vote? Like maybe the terrorists thinking they can win if they just hang on until this withdrawal date the Democrats are talking about?
What the Iraqi government is saying, very nicely, is that the Democrats are trying to give the terrorists a way to win. Which is exactly right. That may not be the Democrat intent (their only real objective in all of this is to win in 2008), but it’ll be the outcome if they get their way.