From NBC's Kelly Paice
After President Obama's primetime speech last night on the way forward in Afghanistan, the conservative blogosphere hit back today saying the president is playing the blame game and that his war strategy is worrisome.

Red State weighs in with what some heavy hitters from the Bush administration are saying about Obama's speech -- especially regarding the number of troops sent to Afghanistan. Red State's Dan McLaughlin writes: "One line in President Obama's orgy of blame-Bush-for-everything speech last night has prompted former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, who managed the Afghan war for five years, to call for the President to back up his assertions."

In a statement released by Rumsfeld, the former secretary said, "In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that 'Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.' Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response. ... I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, 'repeated' or not, the White House should promptly make them public."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded today, as Red State's McLaughlin points out, clarifying that "Obama had been talking about the post-Rumsfeld era of 2008." Gibbs said, "You go to war with the secretary of Defense that you have," to which McLaughlin adds "Or, in the case of the Obama Administration, you go to war with the very same secretary of Defense -- Robert Gates, the man who held the job in 2008 -- that you just threw under the Obamabus."

Erick Erickson agrees with McLaughlin in that Obama played the blame game last night with the Bush administration: "True to form, Obama spent most of his speech decrying the Bush administration going into Iraq." And Erickson points out that "[i]n 4608 words, [Obama] 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.'"

Jeff Emanuel on Red State pulled an Iraq thread through his analysis too, saying that Obama "laid out a strategy for Afghanistan that embraced every single thing that went wrong in Iraq over the last six years (particularly the bloody 2004-06 period), and that avoided implementing any of the tactics that actually made that western front in the GWOT the rousing success it is today."

On Power Line, Paul Rahe suggests that after the president's speech last night, "President Obama has given his adversaries -- both within his party and outside it -- plenty of rope with which to hang him. It is most unlikely that the US military can accomplish the end that he seeks within the timetable that he lays out. If they fail to do so by 2011, mark my words: everyone will pile on."

And NRO's Robert Costa has some key senators on the Hill weigh in, as well. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said the president's Afghanistan strategy is "three-quarters baked": "He's correct in adopting General McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy. He's right in saying that we need to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And he's correct in focusing on training the Afghan army and police forces. Those are all fundamental goals. It's that last quarter, his timetable to begin withdrawal in July 2011, which concerns me." And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) expressed her worries to "NRO that 'a hard deadline of any date is the wrong message to send,' and potentially cause for unrest in the region."

And yet despite his own controversies this week, Huck even weighed in on the president's Afghanistan speech. One particularly revealing quote from Huckabee's statement read: "[Obama's] supporters on the left, who have been calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, must have felt like they'd gotten a hard spanking by their big brother." Huck also showed a little support for the pres: "But, the President correctly pointed out al-Qaeda is a cancer in Afghanistan that threatens us all. You don't deal with cancer by pretending it doesn't exist. It may have taken longer than it should have, but the President deserves credit and our support and respect for coming to the right conclusion."

And GOP12 has the BIG story of the day: The bowling industry (as in the sport) scored a strike in landing Sarah Palin as the keynote speaker at the International Bowl Expo in June 2010.

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
While many liberal blogs praised the mechanics of President Obama's speech, many had criticism for what they viewed as his mixed message on strategy.

Americablog's John Aravosis on Obama's prose and politics: "Obama did a great job of using the pomp and circumstance of office, as Bush and other Republicans always do, to lend an air of dignity to the evening." He adds, however, "In the end, I don't think the speech really changes anything… the right is still going to hate him, and the left is still going to be ticked that we're sending more troops."

Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald also writes of his differing views on Obama's Afghan policy and last night's speech: "Obama's escalation is, in my view, more likely to subvert rather than promote the security goals he cites to justify it. But if Obama's approach -- reflective of the Republican "realists" to whom he seems to listen most -- slays the pervasive, preening "liberal hawk" fantasy that we invade and bomb other countries in order to help them, that will at least be an important value. "

Washington Monthly's Benen also notes the way the President summarized the past eight years of America's involvement in Afghanistan, which was flecked with "passive" criticism for the Bush administration. "The president said "reinforcements did not arrive," not, "Bush didn't send them" -- but the underlying message is hardly subtle.

Afghanistan was headed in the right direction ... then Bush turned to Iraq ... then Afghanistan began to deteriorate ... then al Qaeda reorganized ... then the Afghan government faltered ... then the Taliban started reclaiming much of the country. U.S. commanders requested more U.S. troops and didn't get them."

Benen on why he went into the president's speech, and left it, feeling skeptical: "I don't know what the 30,000 additional troops are going to do when they get to Afghanistan. I don't know what our new objectives are. I don't know how U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in July 2011 -- just a year after additional troops arrive -- or what can reasonably be accomplished over the preceding 12 months. I don't know how we'll pay for the escalation. I don't know if we'll meet benchmarks, or if the benchmarks actually exist. I don't know how the administration can pressure the Afghan government, or how it will respond. I don't know if the Karzai government can be trusted, or whether it will ever have the confidence of the Afghan people. Other than that, the whole situation is as clear as day."

Andrew Sullivan on what the President didn't address in his speech: "We cannot have the adult conversation about how much terrorist damage the US should tolerate compared with the costs of trying to control this phenomenon at its source. We are not mature enough as a country to have that conversation. And Obama has decided it isn't worth confronting that question now."

Politico's Ben Smith points out that the "Taliban's oppression of Afghan women and girls," a major part of Obama's previous addresses—was absent from this one: "Tonight's speech includes a passing, abstract reference to "human rights" -- but not a single reference to Afghanistan's women and girls. That, presumably, falls into the category of "nation building."

Charles Lemos of MyDD.com writes: "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."

Some blogs, including the Washington Monthly and Talking Points Memo, had open threads for readers to offer their thoughts while President Obama delivered his speech. Below, a few examples:

On Washington Monthly, T-Rex writes, "I'm not thrilled with the idea of escalation either, but I do like the fact that unlike Bush, or Nixon or LBJ, he did set a fairly clearly defined, modest goal and a date for draw-down."

Fyreflye: "Another Democratic President too cowardly to stand up to the clamor of the war party. Afghanistan will be the graveyard of American imperialism as surely as it was of the Soviets and so many occupiers before. And yet they're wondering why so many of us will not bother voting next year."

diachroni writes on Talking Points Memo: It's how persuasive the speech is that is the true criterion. And on this score, an absolute failure. We must win this war, but if Karzai and Pakistan don't play along, we'll pack up and leave? Either Obama 's threat to pull out is hollow, or this war is not necessary.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended the Obama administration's decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as well as to set July 2011 as the date to begin transferring authority to Afghan forces.

On the difficulties in Afghanistan, like that the government is weak and corrupt:
"I think it's important to recognize that despite all of the difficulties that exist in Afghanistan, there are some positive steps that have been taken in the last several years that we can build on. There are certain ministries and cabinet members who are just first rate. They're getting the job done... We've also made it very clear to President Karzai and all of his allies that this is it. We have no more time to waste. We feel like the last eight years didn't produce the outcome it should have."

On selling the 30,000 troops to Congress and the American people:
"I think that the president conveyed both resolve and urgency last night. The resolve was clear. That you know, if he could have walked away from this responsibility, that would have been the easy political call to make."

On GOP criticism that the July 2011 date will embolden the enemy:
"I think that if you re-read what the president said last night, he very clearly said that he wants to see the transfer of authority begin in July 2011. It needs to be done in a responsible way. That is conditions-based. He has said to us, he has said to others, we're not talking about falling off a cliff and beginning to, you know, bring troops home."

Clinton added, "The advantage is to say clearly to the Afghans themselves, 'You have got to start stepping up and taking this responsibility. We will be there with you in the future -- not necessarily with combat troops, but with trainers, with logistics, with other ways of supporting you. But you cannot just stand back and let others try to defend your country.' And I think that's an important message. It does combine resolve and urgency. And I think that is exactly what the president intended to communicate."

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
Here's an update on the local headlines from the top ten 2010 Senate race states. Below is the order First Read rated them, in terms of the likelihood of switching parties.
 
1. CONNECTICUT
2. NEVADA
3. COLORADO
4. MISSOURI
5. NEW HAMPSHIRE
6. OHIO
7. ILLINOIS
8. LOUISIANA
9. PENNSYLVANIA
10.KENTUCKY

NEW HAMPSHIRE: "Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is scheduled to host a fundraising lunch Wednesday for former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte), who the National Republican Senatorial Committee recruited to run for his open seat in 2010," CQ Politics reports. "Some New Hampshire Republicans have criticized Ayotte for being handpicked by Senate Republicans to run for Gregg's seat, so Ayotte has been careful not to appear as the establishment candidate -- even declining to ask NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) for an endorsement."

Republican candidate Ovide Lamontagne writes an op-ed for the New Hampshire Union Leader criticizing Democratic opponent Rep. Paul Hodes' support of the health care bill currently making its way through Congress. Tying hodes to the national Democratic establishment, Lamontagne writes: "The public option in the Pelosi-Hodes health care bill will bring us into a government-run single-payer system in very short order...Paul Hodes and the liberals in Washington always think big government knows best, and they are wrong." 
 
CONNECTICUT: Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon and former chief executive of WWE Wrestling apprised members of a local Rotary Club of her credentials on fiscal issues: "The best quality I have is I helped build a business from the ground up, and my mom and dad taught me you can't spend what you don't have," McMahon said, according to the Stamford Times. "We're spending too much. If the government had to run on standard accounting principles, well, they don't, and they won't. We have to not spend more than we bring in."

FLORIDA: A day after disbarred Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein pleaded not guilty to charges that he ran an intricate Ponzi scheme, Democratic Senate candidate Maurice Ferre sent out a press release calling for an "investigation into allegations that [Governor Charlie] Crist's administration traded judicial appointments in Broward County in exchange for hefty campaign contributions from Rothstein," South Florida Business Journal reports. 
 
Crist is "pulling out all the stops to woo the Chicago Cubs to Florida for spring training," reports NBC Miami. "Crist reportedly met with Cub officials Tuesday and told them he was willing to go "as far as possible" to get the team to move it's spring training to Naples." The team currently trains in Arizona, the home state of Crist's friend Sen. John McCain. 
 
ILLINOIS: CQ Politics reports that Democratic candidate and former Chicago Inspector David Hoffman is up with his first TV ad in the race for President Obama's former Senate seat. "Let's take that fight to the U.S. Senate," Hoffman says in the ad. "The bankers, the lobbyists and insiders have owned Washington for too long." CQ writes that"[t]he reference to bankers is an obvious jab at [primary opponent Alexi] Giannoulias, who used to manage his family's Chicago bank." 
 
MASSACHUSETTS: Per Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, the Boston Globe reports that Rep. Edward Markey will endorse Senate hopeful Rep. Michael Capuano.

And the Boston Herald endorses Capuano, following the Boston Globe's suit.
 
TEXAS: In an interview with Real Clear Politics, Governor Rick Perry denies any interest in running for president in 2012. He did, however, say Sarah Palin would be a " "very, very talented and incredibly focused candidate" if she decided to run. And on the president's newly-announced Afghanistan decision, Perry said: "[American] military leaders have spent a lifetime studying tactic and politics, and they are substantially better qualified, in my opinion, than the president [who's] trying to make a decision to placate those on the left who want him to unilaterally cut and run."
 
The political action branch of the advocacy group Empower Texan/Texans for Fiscal Responsibility endorses Governor Rick Perry for re-election, though the group's treasurer adds that "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison continues to be an asset working on behalf of all Texans in Washington...There is no better service she can provide for our state and country than continue the federal fight she has so ably waged on our behalf."
 
Stay tuned for a superpoll: Texas' top five newspapers have "joined to conduct a series of polls for the 2010 statewide political races in Texas:" The Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express-News will release their first poll before the March primaries.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Obama administration says the government cannot meet next year's deadline imposed by Congress for ensuring that 100% of cargo sent to the U.S. by ship has been physically screened.

The requirement was intended to help prevent a nuclear device from being smuggled into the U.S. in seagoing cargo. But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee Wednesday that it will be impossible to assure that all cargo is screened by the July 2010 deadline. The administration will seek an extension, allowed under the law passed by Congress.

Homeland Security pilot programs in five overseas ports, to attempt 100% screening, have so far shown how difficult it is, Napolitano said. "The technology does not exist to effectively and automatically detect suspicious anomalies" in cargo containers, and currently available scanners have a hard time seeing accurately through dense materials, where hazardous substances could easily be hidden, she told the Senate Commerce Committee.

The problem is also partly a practical one. Most ports do not have a single point through which all cargo passes, so 100% screening would either slow trade or require ports to be redesigned. And the cost of 100% scanning would be steep.  Installing canning devices would cost about $8 million for each of the roughly 2,100 cargo lanes at more than 700 ports around the world that ship to the United States, she said.

Homeland is expanding on a program started in the Bush administration that relies on intelligence and shipping reports to identify the highest priority cargo for screeing. It also relies on trusted shippers who have demonstrated good security practices to screen and safeguard their own cargo bound for the U.S.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The New York State legislature voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in a 38-24 vote.

New York would have become the sixth state, and the most populous, to allow same-sex couples to get married. And it would have been the first to grant full marriage rights from a standing start, without having first granted interim rights such as civil unions.

Only one other state, New Hampshire, has approved gay marriage by action of the legislature. The others -- Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa -- have done so primarily by court action.

From NBC's Savannah Guthrie and Domenico Montanaro
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary, won't be testifying before a House committee tomorrow in relation to the state dinner security breach.

And get this, the White House is citing separation of powers concerns.

Just asking, but didn't Karl Rove, et al, use that reasoning in the Bush administration -- for what some would consider a much more serious matter? And didn't liberals go nuts over that?

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The New York state Senate is scheduled to take up a vote on same-sex marriage today. The state Assembly has passed the measure, and the state Senate has decided to debate it.

But it's not at all clear Democrats, who have just a one-seat majority in the state Senate, have the votes to pass it.

The New York Times:

Senate Republicans said Wednesday morning that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill, but it was not certain whether those votes would be enough to offset the handful of Democratic no votes that are anticipated.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont and will be in New Hampshire starting in 2010. Maine and California previously  approved same-sex marriage, but those laws were repealed by referenda.

The Washington, DC, city council voted to approve same-sex marriage on Tuesday, but that fight is far from over. Bishops are lobbying Congress to overturn the law -- and to put it to a referendum.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Besides being about 25 years younger and having a fuller head of hair, Rory Reid is a splitting image of his father, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

They both have the same narrow faces; they have thin, wiry builds; and they wear eyeglasses.

As Rory, the current chairman of the Clark County (Las Vegas) Commission, runs for governor of Nevada next year, perhaps his biggest challenge is whether voters see the resemblance, too -- especially at a time when father Harry is running for re-election and is dealing with dismal poll numbers.

In an interview with a handful of political reporters in DC today, Rory Reid dismissed the talk that it will be a problem for him being on the same ballot with his father next year.

Ultimately, Reid said, he will be running against one of the GOP gubernatorial candidates -- either incumbent Gov. Jim Gibbons or Gibbons challenger Brian Sandoval -- and not his father. He said voters will be asking, "'Which of the candidates will make my life better?' And that's why they're going to be voting for me."

"I think the campaign will be about me and my vision for the future," he added.  

Reid said his central message is improving Nevada's economy and making it more diverse by focusing on renewable resources, wind energy, and broadband technology. "I think Las Vegas exemplifies Nevada's problem: a reliance on one industry" -- entertainment.

Reid ducked several national questions. On whether he would "opt out" of the public option if the Senate health-care bill his father has written becomes law, he answered that he has no idea what the eventual health-care law would entail. "I'm not going to get into what the law might be."

Regarding whether he supported President Obama's troop increase to Afghanistan, Reid replied that he's running for governor of Nevada, not federal office. "That policy is best left to the president."

He also declined to talk about his father's Senate race. "I think you should ask him to handicap his own race."

He said he'd rather take questions on his own race, which he said, "I think I'm going to win."

From NBC's Mark Murray
At 2:00 pm ET today, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor will give what his aides have billed as a major speech on the economy. According to advance excerpts, Cantor will propose seven ways to boost job creation without spending any federal monies. Those seven ways include stripping some governmental rules and regulations, not increasing income taxes (until the unemployment rate reaches 5%), reforming the unemployment system, and promoting free trade.

"These are seven simple solutions that don't involve massive new government spending, new bureaucracies, or more debt," he is expected to say. "They are based on time-honored principles proven to create jobs and ultimately economic prosperity in America."

Cantor will add, "The contrast between our conservative vision and the policies being pursued by those in charge is stark. While they push for driving us deeper into debt, we will stand for the virtues of restraint. While they seek to expand government control, we will promote common sense solutions proven to work."

The challenge for Cantor and Republicans is that these solutions -- low taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations -- existed during the Bush years, which saw three different economic downturns (in 2001, 2003, and 2008), and which produced the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades.

From NBC's Libby Leist
In his Q and A with Sen. Levin, Secretary Gates said the July 2011 date for beginning withdrawal of U.S. troops is NOT conditions-based.

GATES: July 2011 is when we expect the transition process to begin.
LEVIN: Is that date conditions based or not?
GATES: No sir.

There was also a tense exchange between Gates and Sen. McCain, who was pressing the Defense secretary about the July 2011 date for beginning withdrawal.

McCain asked Gates whether the withdrawal will begin regardless of conditions on the ground, what McCain calls an "arbitrary date."
 
Gates said July 2011 will be the "beginning of a process not the end of that process" and there will be a review in Dec 2010 about "whether we will be able to meet that objective" of beginning troop withdrawal.

McCain pressed Gates on the need for the administration to make clear to the American public what exactly will happen in July 2011.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
While it's well knowm that liberal House Democrats are reluctant to support troop increases in Afghanistan, Senate Democrats are also starting to voice concerns about President Obama's strategy. Their views range from flat out opposition to skepticism.

Here's a sampling of excerpts of written statements released shortly after the president's address:

Russ Feingold (WI):
 "I do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered."

Bernie Sanders (VT):
 "I have serious concerns. "First, why are American taxpayers and our brave soldiers bearing almost all the burden in what should be an international effort? Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world?... My nightmare is that we may get caught in a quagmire situation from which there will be no successful exit."

Video: Sen. Bernie Sanders expresses his concerns over the cost of a troop increase in Afghanistan.

Sherrod Brown (OH):
 "While I'm encouraged that the President laid out clear goals and a responsible timeline for completion, I remain skeptical about a commitment of 30,000 of our service men and women... But I continue to remain skeptical. I do not want a long commitment of troops in the region and I am concerned with the dramatic costs to human life and to military families. Before we commit more troops and more taxpayer dollars, there must be a clear path to stabilizing the country that does not amount to an open-ended commitment of troops."

Arlen Specter (PA):
 "I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they're out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?"

Barbara Boxer (CA):
 "I support the President's mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda."

Tom Udall (NM):
 "...I remain unconvinced that sending an additional 30,000 American troops into harm's way improves the situation or advances our national security interests in the region. Although skeptical, I remain eager to learn the rationale for this strategy in Afghanistan as the plan and its details are explored through committee testimony and debate in the days and weeks to come."

Paul Kirk (MA):
 "I'm encouraged by the President's plans to ultimately disengage us from Afghanistan in a responsible and timely fashion. I remain skeptical, however, about a significant troop build-up when the legitimacy of our Afghan partner is in serious question."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** When no one is happy: The hardest thing to do this morning is to find someone who is 100% pleased with both President Obama's speech last night and his new Afghanistan policy. Many Democrats seemed hesitant to endorse the president's plan in whole, but found ways to compliment him -- either on the speech, or with the process, or by blaming the previous administration. Many Republicans gave cautious support for the policy, but found ways to criticize the president over the lengthy review or for entertaining a start date for withdrawal. Obama had a number of goals for his speech, but the biggest one was with the American public: to buy, er, rent time from them on this war. Most Commanders-in-Chief get at least a temporary boost in the polls after delivering a major primetime address on matters of war and peace. But given the dire economic feelings in the country (something the president mentioned a few times in his speech, which in hindsight is quite striking given the topic), as well as the polarized nature of the electorate right now, will he even get a bump? At best, the president has to hope he simply convinced the public that he had nothing but bad options in front of him, and picked the one that gives the military a final shot at trying to bring the war to some sort of successful or respectable conclusion.

*** What was left unsaid: A couple of things were still unclear after the speech. One, how will the government pay for this war? Sources in the administration say they are still trying to work with Congress on a plan, but the last thing anyone wants on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is the war surtax idea to get taken too seriously by lawmakers. Two, what exactly is the "stick" (to use the carrot/stick metaphor) when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is it the July 2011 transfer date? Speaking of, with Republicans criticizing this as setting a "date certain," does anyone else have flashbacks to 2007-2008? And where is the GOP criticism to the current withdrawal/transfer date in Iraq?

*** How quickly folks forget: Also, for those on the left who are pounding Obama for his troop increase, they apparently didn't hear the many times he pledged to either ramp up or focus on Afghanistan. In short, he's practicing what he preached on the campaign trail. Here's what he said in his speech back on Aug. 1, 2007: "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan… Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban." Another part of the president's speech getting too little attention is how the July 2011 pledge is a signal to the American people that this is when they should judge him on this policy and whether it's working. And it means he's allowing his first term to be (partially) judged on this issue. It's certainly not a politically timid decision; it's quite gutsy considering how pessimistic so many are when it comes to Afghanistan.

*** The action moves to Capitol Hill: Today, the Afghanistan story moves from West Point to Capitol Hill, where Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee beginning at 9:00 am ET. The trio then testifies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 1:30 pm. For more congressional reaction to Obama's speech last night, MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" will interview Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D), Joe Lieberman (I-D), and Orrin Hatch (R) beginning at 1:00 pm ET. Meanwhile, NBC's David Gregory will be anchoring the 3:00 pm hour on MSNBC, and he'll interview Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S.

*** 2010 reaction: As it turns out, the most critical responses to Obama's speech -- from the right and left -- came from 2010 candidates in competitive primaries. Here was Marco Rubio (R) in Florida: "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." And here was Cheryle Jackson (D) in Illinois: "I respect and support President Obama but I disagree with the decision to commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan.  It is time to take care of America again and time to bring our troops home. Until we stop spending hundreds of billions on wars, we will not have the focus or money to solve the challenges we face at home." Clearly, both candidates are playing to the base. We've seen similar examples in other races.

*** The GM firing: Under the radar yesterday was a HUGE development, a decision by the government-supported GM board of directors to fire one of the last remnants of the OLD GM leadership team, CEO Fritz Henderson. Remember, GM is a symbol for the American public to track just how government intervention in the economy and the private sector works. The administration, on one hand, should be happy that their handpicked board is willing to move quickly if results are missing but it's a headline that will frustrate some who questioned the idea of rescuing GM in the first place, giving them an 'I told ya so' opportunity.

*** The CBO giveth … and taketh away: Several months ago, the Obama White House was seething at the health-care numbers coming from the Congressional Budget Office. Now it's celebrating the nonpartisan organization's figures. First came the CBO report concluding that most -- but not all Americans -- would see their health-care premiums slightly decrease or remain the same under the Senate health-care bill. Next was the CBO study stating the economic stimulus saved or created between 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs during the 3rd quarter, finally giving the White House some good news in a P.R. battle over the stimulus that it has been losing.

*** Tanner's out: Yesterday, Tennessee's John Tanner became the second House Democrat in the last two weeks to announce that he won't be running for re-election (Dennis Moore of Kansas was the other). Will others follow? As we've pointed out before, the current lack of Democratic retirements is what makes the prospects of Republicans winning back the House next year very unlikely. But does that start to change?

*** Establishment pushes back against purity test: We missed this yesterday, but Politico's Martin reports that establishment Republicans are pushing back against the proposal that GOP candidates must adhere to at least eight of 10 issue tests in order to receive support from the Republican National Committee. Said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis: "We're becoming a church that would rather chase away heretics than welcome converts and that's no way to become a majority party." Added former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds: "I don't think national committeemen putting purity tests on the party is wise." And here's current New York Rep. Peter King: "I think it's dangerous to judge a candidacy just based on a questionnaire. You have to look at the person."

*** Reed appears to have won in Atlanta: In the run-off for Atlanta mayor, Kasim Reed (who is black) appears to have narrowly defeated Mary Norwood (who is white), 51%-49%. with 100% of precincts reporting. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Reed led Norwood by 758 votes out of a total of more than 83,000 cast – a margin of 0.92 percent. It is a sign of how hotly contested this race was that nearly 11,000 more voters turned out for the runoff than for the general election in November."

*** Cantor's economic speech: Serving to pre-but President Obama's job summit tomorrow, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor gives a speech on the economy at 2:00 pm ET. The title of the speech: "Does Creating Jobs Have To Cost Money?" The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is criticizing Cantor for earlier trying to take credit for stimulus spending. "Cantor needs to let his constituents know the truth -- does he favor canceling funding from the Recovery package in his congressional district that created jobs or does he plan to continue taking credit for the funding he fought against?" asked DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson.

*** DGA meets in DC: Finally today, Democratic governors and gubernatorial candidates are gathering in DC, and will attend a "Candidate and Strategist Luncheon" beginning at noon ET. Then, at 1:15 pm ET, leaders at the Democratic Governors Association will hold a press conference, where it will announce its new leadership for 2010 and also talk about next year's gubernatorial races.

Countdown to MA Special Primary: 6 days
Countdown to MA Special Election: 48 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 335 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

The front page of the Boston Globe: "Amid declining support for the war around the country and in his own Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, Obama last night avoided using the language of outright victory used so often during his presidential campaign. Instead of talk of 'winning' in Afghanistan, he spoke of degrading the Taliban's capabilities enough to transfer responsibility for security to Afghans themselves, similar to the handover that is underway in Iraq."

The New York Post also points out that "win" was missing from the speech. "President Obama told the nation last night that he will send more 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and start bringing US forces home in mid-2011 -- but the word 'win' was nowhere in his 4,581-word prime-time address."

The New York Daily News' cover (below Tiger and John Gotti Jr. beating "the rap again") is Obama: "It won't be easy."

The AP's Woodward fact-checks Obama's speech: "Can more U.S. troops in Afghanistan really convert Afghans into an effective fighting force? Will allies answer the call to do more? Is Pakistan truly prepared to take on the extremists who pose the greatest threat? President Barack Obama said yes in his speech Tuesday laying out his plan to pour 30,000 more troops into the Afghan war, then begin pulling out in 18 months. The prospects, though, at least judging by recent history, are mixed."

The Los Angeles Times' McManus writes about the rationale for setting a withdrawal timetable. "The Taliban may be the deadliest threat the U.S. faces in Afghanistan, but it is by no means the only enemy. Almost as dangerous is the corruption and incompetence of Hamid Karzai's government, which has alienated Afghans and allowed the Taliban to stage a resurgence… The president's speech aimed to address all three of those problems at once -- and make time an ally instead of an enemy. Obama's hope is that setting a timetable for withdrawal is the best way to compel his balky partner Karzai to clean up his government and train bigger and better Afghan forces to take over most of the battle."

The Wall Street Journal's Jerry Seib: [T]he relationship between the American and Afghan presidents now becomes one of the world's most important, and most complex. American officials alternate between exasperation at Mr. Karzai for his flaws and failings, and a realization they have no choice but to build him into a stronger foundation for stopping Islamic extremists. It's hardly clear that the U.S. can simultaneously critique and strengthen Mr. Karzai. The Obama approach, as the president himself describes it, sounds an awful lot like tough love."

USA Today notes the tricky situation Obama faces in which much of his base disagrees with sending more troops to Afghanistan. "'I'm a big fan of the president's,' said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. 'But I think he's come to the wrong conclusion.' That leaves Obama in a perilous political situation, facing a potential mutiny on this issue among liberal interest groups such as MoveOn that helped elect him and Democratic legislators on whom he is counting to pass a health care bill in the next few weeks."

Today, Obama "has a meeting scheduled with Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina."

"A new measure on the public option will be unveiled next week, which Senate Democratic leaders hope will break the logjam on healthcare reform," The Hill reports. "Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who has been tapped by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to come up with a Plan B approach to the public option controversy that has divided Democrats, has been working closely with liberal and conservative Democrats, as well as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)… Carper, a junior member of the Finance Committee, was tight-lipped on the details of his plan, but noted that he has been talking extensively with Snowe."

"Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) will file an amendment to the Senate healthcare bill in order to repeal the insurance industry's antitrust exemption on Tuesday. The House included a similar repeal in its legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has expressed support for it. But some centrist Democrats oppose the repeal. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has said he's secured an assurance from Reid that the provision will not be included in the final Senate bill… Sen. Joe Lieberman has joined Leahy in calling for a repeal, an interesting move for the Connecticut Independent whose state is home to several insurance firms' headquarters.  'There is no reason that health insurers should be exempt from our federal antitrust laws,' Lieberman said in a statement."

Per Roll Call, "Starting Tuesday, the Senate Republican Communications Center, McConnell's version of Reid's war room, began a rapid-response plan based on the GOP's efforts during the fight over Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, GOP aides said. During that debate, McConnell's staff sought to rebut Sotomayor's testimony, as well as statements by Democratic lawmakers in favor of her nomination. For the duration of the health care debate, McConnell's office will take a similar approach, providing real-time rebuttals to Democrats' floor statements and amendments."

MASSACHUSETTS: "A staid primary campaign for US Senate turned testy last night, as Attorney General Martha Coakley cited her gender in an unusually pointed personalization of the abortion issue and US Representative Michael Capuano accused Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca of taking a position on health care that would lead poor women to seek abortions in alleyways," the Boston Globe writes. "The sharp exchange, over how to balance all four Democratic candidates' support for abortion rights with their professed support for a health care overhaul, overshadowed foreign policy on a night when the nation's attention was focused on President Obama's much-anticipated speech on Afghanistan."

TENNESSEE: Here's another Democratic retirement: Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), an 11-term congressman in a district that went for John McCain with 56% for the vote, "announced Tuesday evening that he will retire at the end of his term, a move sure to spark speculation that other veteran House Democrats facing tough re-election campaigns may instead head for the exits," Politico writes. "Tanner becomes the second Blue Dog Democrat in two weeks to retire rather than face what could have been a contentious re-election in 2010."

From MSNBC.com's Carrie Dann
The Congressional Budget Office report on stimulus jobs that First Read mentioned earlier today continues to be enthusiastically used by the Obama administration as ammunition against the Recovery Act's critics. In a letter sent today to Minority Leader John Boehner -- and cc'd to the House Oversight and Government Reform's vocal ranking member, Rep. Darrell Issa -- the White House made doubly sure that Republicans have laid eyes on yesterday's report, which estimated that as many as 1.6 million jobs were created or saved in the third quarter.

"Indeed, having heard the Congressional Budget Office cited frequently in your speeches and statements, it seems their report should be a particularly reliable and independent answer to any questions you may have about Recovery Act job impact," wrote Ed DeSeve, a senior adviser to the administration on the Recovery Act.

The non-partisan CBO report also echoed a point that the administration has been pushing since jobs numbers first started to be released earlier this year: that the stimulus cash received by the companies who are reporting to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board represents only about a quarter of the total Recovery Act spending.

Boehner and Issa have been among the most vocal critics of the Board's accounting of jobs created by the $787 billion package -- of which about $275 billion goes towards contracts, grants, and loans intended to directly spur employment. The Board, which tallies jobs as reported by recipients of stimulus funds, says that about 640,300 jobs were created or saved with the money as of the end of October.

*** UPDATE *** Boehner put out this response: "The Obama administration is trying to scam the American people by continuing to repeat their phony 'stimulus' claims, including the number of jobs 'saved or created' – a metric it seems to have made up out of thin air. As the CBO states on page one of their report, 'it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.'"  

Issa's office also made a statement, saying, "The American people's confidence in this Administration continues to erode as misleading statistics are touted in an attempt to distract attention away from the failure to stop double-digit unemployment.  Economic well-being will only return when sound economic policies allow for real job creation in the private sector."

From NBC's Scott Foster
In an off-camera briefing with reporters, senior administration officials say the 30,000 U.S. troops that President Obama will announce he's deploying into Afghanistan will be in place by next summer and that by July 2011 U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from the country.

Two senior administration officials held a background briefing previewing the president's speech at West Point.

A senior administration official said the president chose an option which gets "more troops into Afghanistan FASTER than any option previously presented.

The official says Pentagon planners are still assessing how many combat brigades will be surged into Afghanistan -- possibly two or three (brigades are in range of 4,000 to 5,000 troops) -- with another brigade-size element committed exclusively to training.

That official adds, however, ALL of these additional U.S. forces will be required to take on a partnering role in order to build up the Afghan security forces.

The officials argued this strategy is not an "open-ended commitment," but cautioned that the withdrawal process beginning in the summer of 2011 will be "conditions-based."

That time-frame, one of the senior administration officials said, is valuable because it puts "pressure" on the Afghans to take responsibility for their own country.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Democrat Russ Feingold (WI) today suggested there is a "significant" number of Senate Democrats with concerns about the administration's plan to increase troops in Afghanistan. 

Feingold, a staunch opponent of sending more troops, addressed his Democratic colleagues today during their weekly Tuesday luncheon.

"I was just in a Democratic conference lunch, and I spoke out on this," he said on the Senate floor. "And I won't say who-said-what, but the number of people who joined me in expressing these very concerns was significant. Many members in my caucus, and I believe members of the Republican caucus -- perhaps from different philosophical prospective -- will come to the same conclusion that this is a mistake to move in the direction of this huge troop buildup."

From NBC's Ali Weinberg
Hours away from President Obama's speech unveiling his new Afghanistan strategy, liberal  bloggers are trading barbs with their conservative counterparts as new criticism of Obama  surfaces from major Republican players and groups.

Balloon Juice's John Cole on Dick Cheney's latest slight at Obama's strategy, which Politico reported today.

Cole writes, "It appears now the press is camping out at Cheney's house in order to find the next quote to undermine current policy."

Andrew Sullivan on Cheney's remarks: "To accuse your successor of 'weakness' because he has actually conscientiously tried to figure out the right thing to do in a war Cheney and Bush clearly botched is a new low in American politics and the partisan politicization of war and  peace." And on Cheney's criticism of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's upcoming civil trial, Sullivan writes, "What Cheney cannot see - because he has no deep appreciation of it - is the beauty of treating a monster like KSM to the stringent calm of Western justice. And what Cheney fears - for he is no fool - is that the trial will also reveal Cheney's torture regime, how it distorted intelligence, prevented bringing suspects to justice and tarred the US for ever as a country that now does what its enemies used to do: abuse, torture and mistreat prisoners in wartime." 

Balloon Juice's Cole also responds to Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, who writes that  Obama's "painful, three-month deliberation on what to do in Afghanistan severely undermined his prior statements."

Cole: "So despite the fact that the previous administration almost completely ignored  Afghanistan for the last two terms, and the fact that it was Obama who immediately rushed  more supplies and personnel to Afghanistan upon his inauguration, because Obama has not  immediately followed through with the next neo-con wet dream and instead took a couple  months to determine the best course of action, he has a credibility problem."

David Weigel at the Washington Independent picks up on the National Republican Senatorial  Committee's "going nuclear" on Ohio Senate hopeful Jennifer Brunner after she "challenges  [General Stanley] McChrystal's credibility" in a Huffington Post article today, comparing it to MoveOn.org's "General Betray-us" controversy of 2007.

The NRSC's Amber Wilkerson Marchand said that Brunner "should immediately apologize not  only to General McChrystal but to all American troops" for her op-ed questioning McChrystal based on his "previous association with the abuse of detainees and with the incident  surrounding Pat Tillman."

Weigel: "Two years ago, Republicans got most Democrats to denounce MoveOn.org when it attacked Gen. David Petraeus's credibility on Iraq. This isn't a new playbook."

Talking Points Memo's Christina Bellantoni on the pre-speech political fallout: "Republicans after weeks of blasting Obama for taking too long already are hailing the decision as the right one. Meanwhile, left-leaning groups question the cost in both blood and treasure, and Code Pink is out with a tough new flier mocking Obama's 'hope' slogan and marching in front of the White House today."

From NBC's Kelly Paice
As President Obama is set to unveil the way forward in Afghanistan in his primetime speech tonight, Power Line highlights the take by Washington Examiner's Byron York, as he analyzes why a majority of Democrats today do not want to escalate the fight in Afghanistan, contradicting their support during the 2008 presidential race when they backed Obama's call to fight the "good war."

York: "If the base didn't support it, then why did candidates promise it? Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game... [T]hey were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support. Many of them didn't, really, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy... [Obama] had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can't tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn't mean it."

NRO's Rich Lowry adds, "[Obama's] heart is not really in this war, but the responsibilities of the office have basically forced him into making the right choice. Although he wants to hedge his commitment with all sorts of timelines and conditions, I'm guessing the logic of the war will continue to carry him in the right direction."

The Weekly Standard's Daily Grind makes a point that First Read highlighted yesterday: How is the president's message tonight on Afghanistan going to be different from his speech last March? The Daily Grind reminds us of the "Obama rhetoric flashback from March 2009," quoting President Obama's speech: "So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you."

GOP 12 points out that Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), like many others on the Hill and across the nation, is looking for the president to "define success" in Afghanistan during his primetime speech this evening. Corker said, "I don't think anybody has ever articulated to the American people, certainly not clearly to me, what success in Afghanistan actually means... I hope the president will delve into that deeply."

Huck Update: Former Governor Mike Huckabee talked with FOX's Bill O'Reilly last night regarding the suspected shooter of the Washington state slayings who reportedly died early this morning. GOP12 has highlights and video of the interview. Huckabee defended his decision to grant clemency to the suspected shooter, saying, "[I]f I could have known nine years ago this guy was capable of something of this magnitude, obviously I would have never granted the commutation." And later in the interview, O'Reilly showed some support for Huck, saying, "Well, it's not your fault, governor."

Ahead of tonight's speech by President Obama on Afghanistan, NBC News Pentagon Producer Courtney Kube went inside the numbers and gathered the data on Americans killed and wounded in Afghanistan since 2001, as well as troop levels. You'll notice that Afghanistan is really becoming Obama's war, as since President Bush has left office, the president has almost doubled the American commitment in the country --without tonight's expected announcement of an additional 30,000-plus more troops.

Here are the numbers of Americans killed and wounded, hostile and non-hostile since the beginning of the war:

Source: Pentagon's Defense Manpower Data Center

Many media outlets also source icasualties.com. Here are their figures:

And here are the troop levels by year in Afghanistan:

2001:
Oct: 1,300,
Dec: 2,500

2002:
June: 8,100
Dec: 9,700

2003
June: 9,900
Dec: 13,100

2004
June: 17,800
Dec: 16,700

2005
June: 18,200
Dec: 17,800

2006
June: 22,000
Dec: 22,100

2007
June: 23,700
Dec: 24,700

2008
June: 30,700
Dec: 31,800

2009
June: 57,600
NOW: 71,000

 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's a story that one of us just wrote for MSNBC.com:

PHILADELPHIA - To say that President Barack Obama has a lot on his plate would be an understatement.

On Tuesday night, he will announce he's sending some 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, he's trying to wind down from another war in Iraq.

He's also dealing with an unemployment rate that now hovers above 10 percent (and probably will go higher when the new jobs numbers are released on Friday). And to top it off, he's attempting to shepherd what would be one of the most significant changes in U.S. domestic policy — reforming the nation's health care system.

As Obama tries to juggle these tasks and priorities, several participants at a focus group conducted here on Monday night said they were willing to give the president more time to fix the economy and manage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The group consisted of five Democrats, three Republicans and three independents from the area.

"It is going to take some time," said Wadeeah, a 32-year-old African-American woman who voted for Obama. "It is not going to happen overnight."

"He's got a lot to do," added Pamela, a white 59-year-old political independent who also voted for Obama. "I think he's doing a good job. I think he's slowly improving the country."

Cheryll, a white 36-year-old Obama voter, agreed. "You can't snap your fingers and make them problems go away. The excitement has gone. But the hope hasn't."

But the focus group — conducted by Democratic pollster Peter Hart for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center — was divided over whether the president is trying to do too much.

Click here for the rest of the story.

From NBC's Mark Murray
While Karl Rove and Dan Senor are applauding the White House's decision on Afghanistan, liberal MoveOn is criticizing it.

In an email, MoveOn is asking its members to call the White House and urge the president to bring U.S. troops home. "After talking to MoveOn members about this possibility for months, it's become clear what most of us think: This is wrong," the email says. "Everyone knows that George W. Bush left a mess in Afghanistan, but escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire. It'll cost the lives of thousands of American troops and Afghan civilians, and it won't make us safer. And with urgent priorities like health care, the climate crisis, and a struggling economy to tackle here at home, it simply does not make sense to divert billions more dollars to this war."

Below is the email....

Dear MoveOn member,
 
President Obama has ordered about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan-a military escalation of the war there.

After talking to MoveOn members about this possibility for months, it's become clear what most of us think: This is wrong. Everyone knows that George W. Bush left a mess in Afghanistan, but escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire.

It'll cost the lives of thousands of American troops and Afghan civilians, and it won't make us safer. And with urgent priorities like health care, the climate crisis, and a struggling economy to tackle here at home, it simply does not make sense to divert billions more dollars to this war.

More and more foreign policy experts are coming to the conclusion that military escalation is not going to solve the problem in Afghanistan. And the majority of Americans already oppose the war. So today the President needs to hear from those of us who disagree with his decision.

Today, can you call the White House and tell the President that we want him to focus on bringing our troops home, not escalating our involvement in Afghanistan?

From NBC's Kelly Paice and Ali Weinberg
First it was Karl Rove praising President Obama's upcoming announcement to send more troops to Afghanistan. Now it's Dan Senor.
 
Senor, a former senior adviser and spokesperson in Iraq during the Bush administration, said he applauds Obama on the decision he has made on the way forward in Afghanistan. His only question is why it took so long.
 
Senor, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a conference call sponsored by the Republican National Committee that the White House decision to delay a new Afghanistan strategy until after the country's presidential elections had been a "worrying sign," especially after Obama had declared the conflict a "war of necessity" this past August. He said, however, that he's now "pleasantly surprised" and "quite encouraged by the president's decision" to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.
 
But he added that he thought Obama's decision-making process was "too long," and that "the president basically signed onto the McChrystal strategy [an increase of tens of thousands of troops] a long time ago," referring to a speech Obama made in March about a new strategy, where Senor said he "made his strategy crystal clear."
 
"It's a legitimate question to ask why do we have to wait four months to get a decision about resourcing a commander's request that was consistent with a strategy that the president had articulated and chosen a long time ago?" Senor asked.
 
In the March 27 speech, Obama announced a deployment of 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and 4,000 troops to train Afghan security forces. He also said the U.S. would "accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000" by 2011. He did not, however, announce any further troop commitments.
 
Senor suggested that the important question that will need to be asked in the days ahead is what exactly will be the NATO and European contributions to the Afghan war effort. The New York Times reported yesterday that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a 500-troop increase, bringing the country's total commitment to 10,000 soldiers, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy "signaled that France was not in a position to commit more troops." 
 
Senor also stressed that the timeline is "critically important." He pointed out that commanders in Iraq said that one of the biggest advantages they had was the timeline, particularly with five brigades sent in five months.
 
He predicted the people will "rush to compare 2010 to 2009," but "the real comparison should really be the summer of 2011 to the summers of 2010 and 2009." He stressed that "it is going to take a couple of years to see the real strong, consistent, durable progress," that Americans a looking for in winning this war.
 
He also touched on the importance of the administration to continually educate the public on Afghanistan and "setting realistic expectations of the American people."