The Apolitical Speech

In his nationally televised address Sunday night, President Bush did not sidestep any of the tough issues regarding the war in Iraq.

Complete text

It wasn't spin.

To me, the speech was apolitical. I think the very candid address was what the American people needed to hear.

Bush cut through the politics and the grandstanding that passes for debate from both sides of the aisle.

He spoke as an American president, not a Republican president.

He spoke to the American people, not only his base. He acknowledged the differences of opinion citizens hold about the war.

Bush clearly and succinctly made the case for seeing the mission in Iraq through to a victorious conclusion.

He didn't sugarcoat anything. He acknowledged the challenges of establishing a democracy, admitting that some intelligence was flat out wrong, and that progress in training Iraqi forces and rebuilding had taken longer than expected.

He pointed out the positives and wasn't afraid to deal with the negatives. He was realistic about the situation. There is no reason to deny failures in Iraq just as there is no reason to ignore successes.

Bush could not have been clearer about America's policy and the nature of the enemy.

My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

Not surprisingly, the usual Dem suspects were critical.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address to the American people on the postwar effort in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism drew mixed reviews from members of Congress and some of the people who want to replace him in 2004.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, called Bush's remarks "nothing short of outrageous."

"In 15 minutes, he attempted to make up for 15 months of misleading the American people and 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction," he said.

In his speech, Bush called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terrorism and said foreign terrorists were to blame for recent violence there. But Dean said the security vacuum caused by the war itself is to blame for that situation.

"The president has created a much more dangerous situation in Iraq," Dean said. "The president has created Iraq to be the front line of terrorism."

This isn't news. It's the same old sorry garbage from Dr. Dean, cheering on the terrorists. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of him.

John Edwards weighed in with this:

"[Bush] retreated to the same rhetoric about progress and peace that do not match the reality occurring every day in Iraq. It is a country consumed with chaos, not a shining example of progress in the war against terrorism."

More defeatist rhetoric from the Dems. Again, that's no surprise from the party of pessimism.

Ted Kennedy also weighed in and as usual broke the scale.

He said he "had hoped to hear acknowledgment from the president of our failures in Iraq, the war on terrorism and the administration's concrete plans for solving them with our allies and through the United Nations. It's not enough to go to the United Nations with a resolution. We must go with the right resolution, and it's not clear that this administration is ready to swallow its pride and do that. Words don't matter. We need deeds."

I suspect Teddy was drinking when he listened to the President's speech. If he wasn't inebriated, then he should consider having his hearing checked. I honestly do not know how this man has managed to be elected to serve in the Senate for over FORTY YEARS!

Something that was driving me nuts as I read through the different reports from the MSM on the speech was their fantasy about a lack of support for the mission in Iraq.

Six in ten Americans believe we should do what the President is proposing. While the President himself acknowledged the deep divide in the country regarding the war, it should be remembered that a majority of Americans believe it would be a mistake to cut and run.

The majority of Americans understand the necessity for completing the mission. They are not willing to accept defeat. They understand how high the stakes are.

The reality is the majority of Americans have not bought into the Dems' retreat and defeat policy for Iraq.

I thought Bush's straight talk was particularly effective.

As I said before, this speech was not political spin. The President was direct and humble, yet confident and firm.

He said:

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

That was spoken like a man of principle and conviction rather than a sleazy, poll-driven, opportunistic flip-flopper.

I particularly liked when Bush spoke to his critics.

We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

The Dems refuse to accept a scenario that includes progress and eventual victory in Iraq. I don't know. I guess many Dems are just naturally pessimistic and defeatist. Their comfort zone is malaise.

Maverick Joe Lieberman is not like these Dems, at least when it comes to Iraq. He's different. He admits that it would be a colossal mistake to "seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Dean, Edwards, and Kennedy want to do precisely that. Thankfully, the majority of Americans are against them.