Everybody and their mother is commenting tonight about the speech, their interpretations, and the like.
I'd like to take some time and post some excerpts from various editorials and offer my thoughts on those, since there are some pretty good ones out there. They're not as blatant as some of the partisan commentary, but they're still well worth the read.
First of all, I'm starting with the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
The editorial board jumps behind Ted Kennedy's proposal that Congress authorize the troop escalation:
Congress should act to prevent the surge, and not just with symbolic votes. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has the right idea: Force Bush to get congressional approval before he can increase troop levels in Iraq by refusing to fund the increase unless he does.
and goes farther by asking for them to rescind the 2002 authorization of military action which he has used to strip us of so many rights:
It can do that by revisiting its resolution of 2002 authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Everything that Bush has done, including his persistent and irrational pursuit of military victory, flows from the power granted by that resolution. Nothing binds Congress from now rescinding what it gave Bush in 2002, before it understood the lies and deceptions underpinning the administration's arguments for war, before 3,000 American troops had died and before the administration had proven itself breathtakingly incompetent in prosecuting an Iraq war.
This editorial is probably the furthest to the left of the ones I've read. A lot of it is definitely wishful thinking, but gets ideas out to the general public that thus-far have been mainly rattling around the blogosphere.
Next comes the venerable (or venereal depending on your point of view) New York Times. Most of what they write has been stated by others, but one paragraph jumped out as matching one of my reactions almost verbatim:
Instead, he said he had warned the Iraqis that if they didn’t come through, they would lose the faith of the American people. Has Mr. Bush really not noticed that the American people long ago lost faith in the Iraqi government — and in him as well? Americans know that this Iraqi government is captive to Shiite militias, with no interest in the unity, reconciliation and democracy that Mr. Bush says he wants.
And, as the "paper of record" they don't go nearly as far as the Star Tribune in demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces, but they do their part.
We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause. We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive political solution utterly lacking in Mr. Bush’s speech. This war has reached the point that merely prolonging it could make a bad ending even worse. Without a real plan to bring it to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offensives.
The Washington Post, aside from Dan Froomkin, has soured of late in their opinion and editorial selections, and their editorial likewise talks out of both sides of its mouth, taking a "well....we should really wait and see what happens before we say too much" approach that can best be summed up in their closing paragraph:
If the United States is not to abandon Iraq to its enemies, the U.S. mission needs to be sustainable, in both military and political terms, over the years it may take Iraqis to stabilize their country. Mr. Bush is betting that a boost in U.S. troops and aid can accelerate that process. If he is wrong, a continued American presence in Iraq may become untenable. The president must do more to persuade the country that the sacrifice he is asking of American soldiers is necessary. And if Iraqis do not deliver on their own commitments in the coming weeks, he must reconsider his strategy -- and suspend the U.S. reinforcements.
If you've noticed, I've gone from the most liberal to the most conservative. I've checked the Chicago Tribune and Washington Times to gather their reactions but as of this diary, they have not had anything referring to the President's speech (the Tribune had UFO's and the Times was bashing Democrats). So, because I began with a local paper with the Strib, I'll close with a local conservative blogger, Powerline.
In the past, I've often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President's ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.
No, I think most listeners realized that this is the same strategy just delivered in a different tie and with minimal smirking.
Words at this point mean little. Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. Most will be willing to give the new plan a chance to work, whether they understand what it is or not. All depends on the success of the new approach.
My reply to each of the sentences. Yes. Maybe. No. Doubtful.
The problem, in my view, continues to be the difficulty of defining "success." As the President warned, even if the new approach is "successful," our television screens will be filled with scenes of violence. But that is precisely what, until now, has been defined as failure.
You're right. We've achieved all of our successes. We've confirmed what Hans Blix told us when he said there were no WMD's. We've caught and killed Uday, Qusay, and Saddam Hussein. We've set up free and democratic elections. By the pre-war standards, we've accomplished our goals and should leave.
As for what I think...if you've read this far you probably deserve it. Here's the letter to the editor I submitted to the Star Tribune. If it gets printed I'll let you know. Also, for those who are wondering about my usual sarcasm, snark, and general wit, this is what happens when I write at 1 a.m.
President Bush said some very dangerous things in his address to the nation Wednesday night.
In part, he said "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Two sentences later he said "We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
Why would we need Patriot Missiles when the insurgents don't have rockets? Is he intending to disrupt these groups inside Iran and Syria and he fears retaliatory strikes? If so, Congress should enact legislation expressly forbidding such operations without explicit Congressional authorization lest we become involved in a war against two additional nations because of the political desperation of our President.
See y'all tomorrow.