12/2: A Speech That Pleased Nobody

Pres. Obama is really getting hit from all sides today in the blogosphere, as liberals and conservatives alike had very negative reactions to his speech on Afghanistan. Liberal bloggers were not at all convinced by the speech, calling it "his least inspiring speech ever." Chris Bowers echoed the views of many in the netroots when he wrote: "Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save." Conservative bloggers also blasted Obama's speech, accusing him of "Bush-bashing" and complaining that "he did not once mention the word 'victory'". Righty bloggers were particularly upset about Obama's statement that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." Erick Erickson fumes: "This is akin to announcing to burglars exactly the time at which you intend to depart your house and also announcing you intend to turn off the burglar alarm. Al Qaeda will just wait us out."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) wrote a post on RedState defending his decision to commute the sentence of WA murder suspect Maurice Clemmons. However, conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Allahpundit) believe that Huckabee's WH '12 chances are doomed.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Dayen, Cole, Black) are ridiculing Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) proposal to fund the Afghanistan war with "war bonds."

OBAMA SPEECH: His Least Inspiring Speech Ever?

Most liberal bloggers were very critical of Obama's speech:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I went into last night's presidential speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan feeling skeptical. I came out of last night's presidential speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan feeling skeptical. That's probably not a good sign about the effectiveness of the presentation."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "There are two possible reasons for the speech being so unconvincing: either Obama doesn't know how to deliver a good speech or else Obama isn't really convinced himself. But we know the former isn't true, don't we? You can fill in the rest yourself."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "I've re-read Obama's Afghanistan speech, and I think it was perhaps designed to displease everyone -- hawks, doves, Democrats, Republicans. Afghanistan and Pakistan is really a least-worst scenario after eight years of war, and so we got an unsatisfying 'get in to get out' strategy without any tactical information and based on an extremely shaky premise. [...] He said that he owed it to the public to provide a real strategy after eight years of drift, and then offered no strategy other than what he said during the first escalation in March -- a 'civilian surge,' a strategic partnership with Pakistan, and... that's it."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "It was perhaps his least inspiring speech ever -- Obama has been at his most inspiring when he reconciles lofty American aspirations with the reality of American accomplishments and American failures. This speech was [George W.] Bush-like in its embrace of platitudes and vagueries, it was often the least convincing where once it might have been the most inspiring. It was a speech that reflected the president deciding on what is maybe the least crappy of a number of crappy options -- without convincingly explaining how it would work. [...] So the speech won't satisfy his party, which is skeptical that the objective of destroying Al Qaeda is served by escalation, it won't satisfy the opposition, which for the most part is ultimately concerned with defeating him by any means, and I doubt it will persuade other people like me who are generally on the fence."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save."

Most liberal bloggers remain strongly opposed to Obama's troop escalation in Afghanistan:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "Which is worse -- a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?"
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "This is a disheartening moment, one where words truly fail to capture the enormity to which the President is committing the nation and its resources. Perhaps there will be a political price to pay but that is irrelevant compared to the cost we are about to pay in blood and coin. May history forgive our errors."
• digby: "To those who insist that I have no right to feel betrayed, please be advised that I don't. I am not even surprised. All the Democrats but [OH Rep. Dennis] Kucinich ran on the platform of winning 'The Good War' just as [MA Sen. John] Kerry did in 2004. Unfortunately, there wasn't anyone on the ballot last November who wasn't promising to escalate to one degree or another, so I had to make my choice based on other criteria. [...] But I was never going to support this. I think it's a terrible waste of life and money and will do nothing to enhance our security or the well being of the Afghan people. I have no faith that it will be over by the time Obama leaves office. These things have a life of their own. It's about politics --- geo and national and the fact that he declined to push the war tax tells us pretty clearly where he comes down."

That said, some liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Klein, BooMan, Aravosis) had more nuanced reactions to Obama's speech. Furthermore, the Daily Kos community appears split -- 40% support Obama's decision to send more troops, while 41% support it and 17% haven't made up their mind.

OBAMA SPEECH II: Horrible. Just Horrible.

Conservative bloggers were very critical of Obama's speech:

• Michelle Malkin: "Bush-bashing? Check. Noxious complaining about the cost of fighting a necessary war? Check. Disingenuous denial that he dithered? Check. [...] Way to restore America's standing in the world, eh? Pray for our troops tonight and every night. They need 'em now more than ever."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Shorter Obama: I blame Bush for all the problems! I'm sending 30,000 troops. This is a war of necessity and my commitment is unwavering -- but, here's a timeline for when we're leaving, win or lose. [...] If you're the Taliban, you're greatly encouraged after hearing this speech. If you care about winning and a Commander-In-Chief who's committed to victory, you're greatly discouraged."
• RedState's Erickson: "In 4608 words, he did not once mention the word 'victory' and the closest he came to using the word 'win' was those three letters appearing in the word 'withdrawing.' [...] The historic record shows that Barack Obama is not even granting McChrystal the General's preferred troop level. McChrystal wanted 40,000 troops to 80,000 troops. So Bush gave the Generals in Afghanistan everything they wanted, despite Obama saying he did not, and Obama is not giving his General what was requested, despite claiming he is. [...] Since taking office, Barack Obama's casualty count is nearly DOUBLE that of George Bush's worst year as Commander in Chief. God help our troops. It's amateur hour still at the White House."

Conservative bloggers were particularly upset about Obama's statement that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home":

• Ace of Spades: "Basically, when you tell your ally you're bugging out in a couple of years, and they know when you do bug out they lose, you have incentivized them to begin defecting to the enemy early."
• Erickson: "Proving yet again that he is a rank amateur, Obama intends to have a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but concurrently announce the timeline for their withdrawal. This is akin to announcing to burglars exactly the time at which you intend to depart your house and also announcing you intend to turn off the burglar alarm. Al Qaeda will just wait us out. They'll only need to wait a year."
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "How can the Commander-in-Chief put a time limit on fighting for our national security? I do not know if I can continue to support a war effort that Obama previously referred to as a 'necessary war' and now calls a 'vital national interest,' but is nevertheless only willing to continue for 18 more months. If it is necessary and vital should we not be willing to carry on until we are victorious?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama's timetable threatens to undermine not just the first prong of his strategy (military) but also second and third prongs (civilian and Pakistan). With only a short-term commitment, we're not likely to exert much influence on civilian behavior. Nor are the Pakistanis likely to be impressed by an America that's more interested in a prompt exit, so it can save money and focus on domestic issues (points Obama emphasized near the end of his speech), than in defeating its enemies."
• Hot air's Ed Morrissey: "In defining our mission's expiration date as 18 months, Obama has undermined whatever good the counterinsurgency strategy will do. [...] No one will cooperate with American troops if they know we're bugging out in 18 months. They're going to decide to cut the best deals they can with the Taliban, who will simply decide to outlast us. [...] Under these circumstances, it would be better to start the evacuation now, rather than have any more of our ground troops targeted by the Taliban for a country they'll soon be running again anyway."
• Glenn Reynolds: "[I]f he were dealing with a real enemy -- like, say, Fox News -- he wouldn't tip his hand so easily..."

Still, a few conservative bloggers (Klein, Miller, Lowry) offered Obama mild praise for deciding to deploy more troops to Afghanistan in the first place. John J. Miller writes: "If it's a choice between a good speech and a good policy, I'll take the good policy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Speech Isn't The Story

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver:

"I feel underqualified to talk about this one because I don't claim any expertise in the area of foreign policy and have rather ambivalent feelings toward American involvement in Afghanistan. But Obama's speech tonight, whether or not it produces some near-term move in Obama's approval ratings (and it could), is really not the big news of the day. Rather, it's the commitment the White House announced earlier to beginning to withdraw forces by July, 2011 as a condition of the surge.

Politically, this seems very risky: in the long run, there's much more downside to breaking the promise than there would be upside to keeping it. If nothing much has changed in Afghanistan and our troops aren't getting out 20 months hence, we can presumably expect some major blowback, especially from liberals -- a primary challenge from Obama's left flank would not be entirely out of the question.

Of course, it may be precisely because the withdraw timetable is so risky politically that it is in fact credible; a credible withdraw deadline is almost certainly better than a non-credible one, but whether or not it's better than not setting a deadline at all, I don't know. I certainly do hope that Obama set the deadline to achieve policy goals and not to quiesce liberals -- if this was intended purely as a political move, it was probably short-sighted."

LEST WE FORGET: Afghanistan Could Distract Media From Tiger, Experts Fear

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- The morning after President Obama laid out his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, media critics are expressing concern that the focus on Afghanistan could distract the media from getting to the bottom of the Tiger Woods story.

With the budgets of media companies stretched to the limit, there are worries that most outlets do not have the capacity to cover both a major war and an alleged scandal involving a prominent golfer and slutty nightclub employees.

Davis Logsdon, the director of the Media Studies Institute at the University of Minnesota, says the simultaneity of the Afghanistan and Tiger Woods stories will mean a 'gut check' for the 24-hour news channels.

'Most news outlets will be forced to choose between analyzing the President's new troop deployment or airing Tiger's alleged voicemails,' he said. 'For the good of the Republic, I hope they will go with the voicemails.'"