Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Republican Reaction to Obama's Iraq Speech: Mostly Negative

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
President Obama's speech Tuesday night marking the end of combat operations in Iraq drew a largely -- but not universally -- negative response from Republicans.
One particular sticking point for many Republicans was the president's failure to tip his cap to the apparent success in Iraq of the counterinsurgency "surge" strategy -- authored by Gen. David Petraeus and implemented by President George W. Bush over the objections of many Democrats, including then-Senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Sen. John McCain, who ran against Obama in the 2008 general election and an early proponent of a troop surge in Iraq, said on Fox News: "What [Obama] should have said: 'I opposed the surge. I was wrong. I made a mistake and George W. Bush deserves credit for doing something that was very unpopular at the time.' " McCain added, "Instead he had to say it's well known that George Bush loves the troops."

Read Our Other Iraq coverage:

- Obama in Oval Office Address: Iraq War Combat Mission Is Over
- Transcript of President Obama's Speech on Iraq
- Iraq Scorecard: The War So Far
- Biden Gives George W. Bush Some Credit for Iraq Surge Success
- No Brass Bands When Troops Return Home From Iraq
- Jill Lawrence: What I Want to Hear From President Obama on Iraq -- Never Again

In a written statement, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas echoed that sentiment, saying: "It's puzzling to listen to this White House try to take credit for the results of the strategy he and Vice President Biden adamantly opposed from the start."
National Review's Jonah Goldberg blogged: "I don't expect an 'I was wrong' from an Oval Office address (though it would be nice -- as it would have been from Bush more than once, too). But Obama's lawyerly avoidance of reality makes him seem petty and raises the suspicion that he can't think straight about these issues. That is dangerous."

(In an interview with PBS on Wednesday morning, Biden did give Bush some credit for the surge. "If you really go back and take a look at this," he said, "you can argue the surge made possible what was the most significant thing that occurred -- which was a political transition where we put over 100,000 Sunnis on the payroll -- the sons of Iraq. General Petraeus deserves a lot of credit and the last administration.")
Other conservatives, acknowledging that a commander-in-chief who opposed the Iraq War from the start had to thread a difficult rhetorical needle, were less critical. The hawkish Bill Kristol wrote at The Weekly Standard, "In sum, the president seemed to me to go about as far as an anti-Iraq war president could go in praising the war effort."
And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "By adopting the Bush administration's plan for winding down the war and transitioning security responsibilities to the Iraqi military over time the President has enabled us and the Iraqis to build on the gains our troops have made."
Others grumbled that a speech billed as a major address on the implications of ending combat operations in Iraq should not have veered into an economic talk – which some critics viewed as a transparent attempt to win votes for Democratic candidates in November.
On Fox News, Charles Krauthammer called the speech "flat and odd" and said the economic tangent showed Obama's focus isn't on international affairs, but is really on "changing America at home." Conservative blogger Erick Erickson Tweeted: "So [Obama] gave a few platitudes on Iraq and turned this into a speech on the economy? And mentions 'dependence on foreign oil'?"
The president also continued to be criticized for his speaking style, which is more professorial than many would like from a leader. As National Review editorialized, "The president's Oval Office address wasn't confidence-inducing."
David Brooks, one of two in-house conservatives at The New York Times, said the address was intended to be a "unifying" speech, but felt it fell short in his mind. Speaking on the PBS "NewsHour," Brooks flatly took issue with the president's contention that the Iraqi people have moved beyond sectarian violence. Brooks also wonders about the wisdom of announcing, as Obama has in the past and did again last night, that all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
Brooks who is known as a stylish writer, also gave low marks to the White House speech-writing staff. "Frankly, just stylistically I think there's been a deterioration in the quality of Obama's speeches -- the literary quality," Brooks said. Repeating a litany of phrases in the speech -- "We must give our children the education they deserve . . . we must jump-start industries . . . we must unleash innovation . . . our troops are the steel in our ship of state" -- Brooks added: "These are sort of normal political metaphors, but they are not the fresh, high-literary quality Obama had a year or two ago."
Finally, Obama was criticized for a lack of passion -- a complaint that has usually come from the president's left but which emanated from the right last night as well. RedState's Erickson, for example, blogged that this was "President Spock addressing the nation without emotion."

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

153 Comments

Filter by:
Bill

To nabbjb0998.... Of course Iraq had WMDs - they got them from us. We supplied Saddam in the early 80s with chemical weapons to use against Iran, which they did in their eight-year war. After it was over, Saddam used them against the Kurds in northern Iraq. The fact that the UN weapons inspectors and our own intelligence operatives couldn't find them means they were either used up, destroyed, or shipped out. Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 911 - he just needed an excuse. He told Tony Blair he wanted to paint a plane with UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hope it would be shot down and give reason for an invasion. Blair thought he was nuts. In early 2003, Bush told Richard Clarke to find a link between Iraq and 911. Clarke reported back there was none. In so many words, Bush said, "Wrong answer. Do it again." Clarke resigned soon after. Months after the war started, the truth came out that Bush lied about WMDs, so he persued the non-existent Iraq/911 connection by parroting 'the war on terror' phrase in EVERY speech he made about Iraq. Bush obviously believed “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" (a quote from Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Geobbels). No matter how you cut it, this was Bush's personal war for the financial benefit of Cheney's former business pals.

September 02 2010 at 2:39 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
fit2lead70

By invading Iraq, America has gained absolutely nothing, outside of financial gain for a number of defense contracting corporations. George W. Bush, at least, owes a deep apology for his disregard for the American and Iraqi people, the Iraq veterans and their families. His selfish "decision" was hands-down the greatest fiscal and geopolitical error in American history. I will never have any respect for him or the Republican Party, as long as they continue to whitewash this horrific blunder, and misdirect dissent toward the new administration.

September 01 2010 at 8:01 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to fit2lead70's comment
Bill

Couldn't have said it better myself. The blood of the dead soldiers is solely on Bush's hands.

September 02 2010 at 2:04 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
fit2lead70

We spended close to a trillion dollars for what?

September 01 2010 at 7:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
kadybug30

Looking at the replies here it Looks like Acorn's funding has been renewed! President Spock is beyond boring and lacking passion! I think the koolaid is wearing off! He had better re-hire (Bill Ayers) whoever wrote his propaganda and lies during the campaign!

September 01 2010 at 7:32 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to kadybug30's comment
tenderlies1

Kadybug Sarah Palin has a board up she will be hurt if you don't drop by and say Hi the post are not going well for her take some tissue

September 02 2010 at 12:50 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Mick

Iraq over. Thank God.

September 01 2010 at 4:50 PM Report abuse +10 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Mick's comment
kadybug30

50,000 are still there...how is that over?

September 01 2010 at 7:32 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
rpavich52

Uninspiring, small and a true lack of Presidential leadership in that speech. I thought, according to MSM, that he was the GREATEST orator of all presidents ... Are you kidding me ???

September 01 2010 at 4:47 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
jim3kath

the president gave a speech, announcing the end to combat operations in iraq. the republicans now want to claim credit for a strategy, go ahead fellows take credit. but please don't stop there. take the credit for the big lie, for the cost, the ultimate cost paid by our troops, and the economic tragedy we all suffer and now the lack of a buffer for iran, unintended consequences or stupidity/greed. please gop take all the credit. what is a victory in a lose-lose situarion? god help us

September 01 2010 at 4:35 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
tenaclark

There is nothing anyone can say to the right wingers who supported a war based on lies. The cost was thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

September 01 2010 at 4:27 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to tenaclark's comment
Ladydobermann

What is also forgotten is the surplus added to the national debt when our military was downsized. (+ for the credit column) When we had to reinstate our military force national debt returns to original (- in the debt column) I don't want a surplus at the cost of our military force.

September 06 2010 at 7:25 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
czmars

the republicans and all those affiliated with members need not to worry. prez. obama is not going to pull a country's name out of a hat and tell the world a bunch of lies. then go against the united nations mandate. go against our major europeaa allies accept of england of course and try to con them into joining that coalition of sorts. bush did a con job on his people as well. he used colin powel to lie for him at the u.n. no wonder the man quit his job if you ask me. want more. i got much more later o.k. thank you.

September 01 2010 at 3:59 PM Report abuse -11 rate up rate down Reply
emp1055

Oh of course the republicans would disagree with the president on anything he said. George Bush told several distorted tales to get the military going to Iraq even though his reasons were lame. Now that President Obama is getting things organized in Iraq and hopefully getting closer to getting our troops out of Afghanastan the republicans are again grumbling. Is it true that the only people intelligent enough to be president are republicans? Think not!

September 01 2010 at 3:57 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>