click to enlarge

President Obama's 33 minute speech at West Point last night is receiving relatively good reviews from Florida's Congressional delegation, with one notable exception being Orlando area Democrat Alan Grayson, who has not been in Washington long enough (obviously) to play by the rules generally associated with partisan politics.

The fiery freshman said after the address, in which the President confirmed reports that he will be sending 30,000 more new troops to the theatre, but also making sure they come home by 2011, that "Continuing the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq is a terrible mistake.  We do not need to have troops 8,000 miles from our shore to keep us safe.  I hope the President will re-consider this decision."

Brooksville GOP Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite has been extremely critical of Obama this year, but was complimentary lst night, saying, "In March, the President said our fight in Afghanistan was of necessity.  I agreed with him.  When he added troops in the spring, I agreed with him.  He has a recommendation from his commanders and he should follow it."

We didn't receive any official reaction from Tampa area Congresswoman Kathy Castor.   Nor from Governor Charlie Crist, who now needs to concern himself with such events as he's running for federal office.  His GOP Senate challenger, Marco Rubio, praised Obama, but hit the GOP talking points in criticizing the fact that it's 30,000, not 40,000 troops that will be going to war, and that there's a date certain for withdrawing troops.  Rubio said, "

While his decision is long overdue, I commend President Obama for finally laying out specifics on the way forward in Afghanistan.  While I support the President’s call for additional troops, I am concerned it falls short of General McChrystal’s specific request.  I am especially alarmed by the President’s insistence on announcing a withdrawal start date.

“Afghanistan is part of the greater global war against violent jihadists.  Victory won’t be achieved based on how quickly American troops can leave.  A secure America requires us to defeat the jihadists in Afghanistan and prevent this fragile nation from once again becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda.  This will require the full commitment and support of the President and Congress.

“As our military and diplomatic teams work to fulfill their mission in Afghanistan, I urge the President to heed his commanding officers’ advice in the coming months and years.”

As far as reviews from the country's pundits, there is an excoriating column written by New York Post military writer Ralph Peters today.   Peters called the speech, "Just plain nuts," and followed up by writing about the fact that the President plans to bring troops home by July 2011,

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?

Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?

That does seem to be an important question, yes?

Other conservatives took issue of the style of the speech, but not the content, which most heartily approved.  On Fox News last night, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove took turns bitching that the President somehow didn't seem very enthusiastic about sending more men and women overseas.  Another conservative, Rich Lowry, essentially writes about the same conundrum that conservatives feel about Obama today.

But Lowry also writes what some liberals should take note of.  That is, the notion that Obama doesn't really want to commit any troops overseas, but has to.  He writes:

Obama could have stiffed McChrystal's request entirely. He could have bid the troop request down to a compromise number well short of what McChrystal needs. He could have announced a hard deadline for total withdrawal. He did none of those things.

Some die hard Obama supporters have said that's what he truly does want to do.  I seriously question that, because, frankly, what's the use of being President then, if one feels one has to appease the military?  Think of the other Democrats who ran two years ago for President. Hillary?  She seems gung-ho about this conflict.  Some others (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd), who knows?  Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich? No way.

But we do know this.  Obama's Vice President (and challenger to the nomination) Joe Biden, has clearly spoken out against such a strategy.

But then again, as Steve Clemons wrote yesterday, Biden's fingerprints are on part of this strategy: the part that says American troops cannot stay in an open-ended conflict, but instead need to begin returning home in the summer of 2011.