Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

After sleeping on it, Twitter folks still upset about Obama's Afghanistan speech

The initial reactions to President Obama's speech last night weren't positive. We'll let 'em sleep on it, we thought, and check back in the morning.

Well, after a night of reflection, the buzz on Twitter hasn't gotten any more pro-war. The tweets are in, and Obama's plan to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan's eight-year war has very few vocal fans.

We sort of rolled our eyes at Michael Moore's Open Letter to President Obama, but based on dozens of tweets, he may have been on the money. A lot of supporters are losing trust in their touted candidate. Onlookers seem to be pining for an immediate end, not a plan.

We've pulled out some of the more interesting tweets from the stream (shown after the jump)....

PaulCauston wrote:

do 30000 troops = peace ? Should Obama return Nobel prize.

OWillis wrote:


HowlingWolfMom wrote:

OBAMA, NO MORE WAR! We voted for you because we thought the troops were coming home! WTF?

MNSchneider wrote:

This is not the change I voted for.

Of course, not every message was negative. (Just most of them.)

KingPinKel wrote:

How long does it take to spill a cup of milk? Mins, now how long does it take to clean it up? Obama didnt MAKE the mess hes cleaning it!

Styles818 wrote:

I don't know why ppl are shocked about the 30,000 troops. Obama has always emphasized Afghanistan. Y'all weren't listening last year.

-- Mark Milian

Click here get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. And we're also over here on Facebook.

Photo: Justin Lane / EPA

Comments () | Archives (7)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Once again, how's that hope and change working out for you? It used to be a sticker I saw on republicant cars, but maybe now it's for dems also.

Last night at West Point, President Obama had a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the world’s only superpower is lead by a tough, determined, world leader, able to make difficult decisions. Instead, President Obama chose to take a hedged, triangulated position between those in America that support the war in Afghanistan and those that oppose it. There was more nuance in the President’s address than there was determination and resolve, which is unfortunate for America and for international security around the globe.

There really are no good options for America and the situation in Afghanistan. Looking backwards into the rearview mirror does us no good; we are where we are and fair or not, the President is forced to look ahead and play the hand he has been dealt. As evidenced by the delay and lengthy deliberation regarding additional troop commitments, President Obama is learning that it is more difficult to actually lead a nation than it is to merely campaign to lead a nation.

Whether the best course of action is committing more troops or withdrawing could be debated by reasonable people, but it is less important than commitment and dedication to one or the other, with resolve. The President needed to get it right last night—either we’re all-in or we’re out—and he failed, choosing conditional commitment and putting his weakness and equivocation on full display for the world.

Rather than attempting to placate his left flank by holding back 25% of the 40,000 troops requested by General McChrystal, the President could have demonstrated he was in it to win it, giving the general the 40,000 troops he requested. Why hold back 10,000 troops? If ever an ounce of prevention were better than a pound of cure, this would be it—give the general what he is requesting and “get ‘er done.” The left is not placated by his gesture to send 30,000 more troops and hold back 10,000, and history informs us well that underwhelming the enemy or relying on the pathetic troop commitments of our allies is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

Clearly, the ultimate pusillanimous act last night was announcing a troop draw-down in 18 months. This was not leadership, but a cowardly act that undermined any attempt by the President to even feign commitment, again serving only one purpose, to unsuccessfully attempt to appease the left.

The left and right are not happy with the President, nor is Middle America, which wants us out of Afghanistan, best achieved by either a total commitment to get out or bucking-up and committing overwhelming force. Giving General McChrystal less troops than he requested and announcing a draw-down in 18 months are jellyfish maneuvers, difficult to rationalize other than through a purely political prism. Middle America deserves leadership from President Obama and knows all too well that the only thing in the middle of the road is a dead possum on a dotted white line.

@A.Muser That's not less than 140 characters...

I LOVE that post from A. Muser about how 10,000 extra troops would make the difference between success and failure just because the General says so. Hmm -- "A. Muser" -- you'd almost think the post was a spoof of some stuffy columnist's work product, except, checking the link, I guess not. Yes, sending 10,000 extra troops would "get the job done" -- of sending 10,000 extra troops, that is. I wonder if the post is a spoof -- it repeats every stock cliche phrase of the editorial page and manages to sound pretentious without saying anything at all. Do you suppose there's some computer programmer out there who puts in a random seed to generate cyber-pontification? Now that would be a way for major newspapers to cut costs in the face of ever-shrinking circulation figures.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner sends more troops to war. They may want their $1.4 million back.

Grow up true believers this is notsuprising raising troops. Learn how the world works. Better yet just forget about it & buy some Chinese holiday gifts @ walmart

The Republicans and the Democrats are one and the same, hopefully Obush's speech will be the wake up call to all that hadn't figured that out yet.
The system is broken and we need a doctor to fix it.
Or the next speech be Iran here we come!


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: