“Having opposed the original Iraq war authorization in 2002, I am pleased with today’s announcement that U.S. troops will withdraw fully from Iraq by the end of the year,” Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette said in a prepared statement.

Sen. Mark Udall

“Our engagement in Iraq has been a testament to the unflappable courage of our men and women in uniform, but it has also proven costly — claiming far too many lives and misdirecting critical military and financial resources from where they were most needed.”

Total withdrawal came as a result of a breakdown in negotiations with the Iraqi government that would have left a training force in place in exchange for immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops.

“I remain concerned about the security situation in Iraq and believe that keeping a limited number of U.S. troops in place to continue training and assistance would have helped sustain U.S. and Iraqi progress in stemming violence,” Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said in a release. “As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

Udall, then a member of the House, also voted against funding the initial war effort, although he later voted to appropriate funds as the campaign continued for nearly a decade, costing 4,400 American lives and more than $1 trillion.

“I voted against the Iraq war, and I still believe that it ultimately harmed what should have been our military’s top priority – our mission in Afghanistan,” Udall said. “However, once our forces were committed in Iraq, abandoning that country would have risked the security of the entire region.”

Leaving troops in Iraq without immunity does not make sense, Udall added.

“It is ultimately unacceptable to expect our troops to provide that assistance without immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, which has become a sticking point between U.S. and Iraqi negotiators,” he said. “Our troops have fought and died to establish a functioning democratic government in Iraq, and now we must respect the wishes of Iraq’s leaders.”

Senator Michael Bennet issued this statement:

“Our troops have performed bravely and effectively in Iraq and accomplished everything that was asked of them, securing communities and creating the space for democratic change to begin to take root. Our gratitude for their selfless service, and the sacrifice of their families, cannot be overstated. I welcome the President’s announcement that – after nine long years, $1 trillion and 1 million service members deployed – he will keep his promise to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year.

“Today is an occasion to again honor the service of those we have lost and recommit ourselves to our obligation to provide returning troops with the health care and support they have earned after a decade of war.

“This announcement represents another significant milestone for the country and U.S. forces, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. However, serious threats against the United States remain, and we must continue to work to ensure we have the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world.”

No Republican members of the Colorado congressional delegation had issued a statement as of Friday afternoon.

Five months after its scheduled parliamentary elections, Iraq is still at a political impasse in negotiations for a governing coalition. Some assume this means the U.S. must scale back its withdrawal, or at least simply reclassify combat troops as military support troops in order to meet the deadline, but Obama is expected to signal a continued commitment to the administration’s goals:

“Make no mistake: Our commitment in Iraq is changing, from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats,” Obama said in excerpts released ahead of the speech.

Obama will also have to address goals for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, about which the Administration and House leadership voiced different expectations on the Sunday shows. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, following the administration’s recent line, downplayed the significance of the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops, saying that it “will be of fairly limited numbers. … [I]t will depend on the conditions on the ground.”

House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who’s had to contend with an increasingly discontented Democratic caucus — 102 House Democrats voted against the most recent war funding bill last week — said Americans would not be satisfied with a mere symbolic show. ”Well, I hope it is more than that,” she told ABC’s “This Week.” “I know it’s not going to be, ‘Turn out the lights and let’s all go home on one day.’ But I do think the American people expect it to be somewhere between that and a few thousand troops.”

Marc Lynch has a good rundown of an admittedly obscure tempest: a frequently mistaken right-wing New York Post columnist insisted, by twisting the words of Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, that Sen. Barack Obama tried to delay negotiations to withdraw troops from Iraq.

We’re meant to believe that, despite the fact that withdrawal is Obama’s Iraq position.

But anyway! Yadda yadda yadda, the meme hangs around the fever swamps for awhile, but now Zebari calls the story “misrepresented.”

Myth, meet reality; the universe is restored to harmony.

What’s important about this? Not so much, really, from a substance perspective.

But from an international-relations perspective, it’s noteworthy for one reason: Zebari didn’t have to say a thing. He has only one reason to speak up: because he can read the same polls as everyone else and can see that, barring catastrophe, he’ll have to deal with an Obama administration come January.

Better, then, to give the likely next president the equivalent of a fruit basket. Much like the Iraqi prime minister did a few months ago.