Republican Reaction to Obama's Iraq Speech: Mostly Negative

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."

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 Krathammer 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."