Ezra Klein notes

• Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing
enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.

• Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control
of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.

• Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services,
advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

Aren’t touted as objectives but steps. The only question is, considering we’ve shown no facility at doing any of those things, what’s to say we do them now. Was all we were missing really a document counseling us to defeat the evildoers?

Well, actually we’ve shown great “facility” (wouldn’t ability be a better word?) at doing just those things. All that Bush talked about today has been going on for some time. The problem I’ve had with the president is that he has not been effectively communicating the progress that has occurred. He did that well today.

Then from ChristianLibrul

Today’s hogwash was just the first of several goerge will spew between now and December 15

What happens on December 15? Another election in Iraq. He only knows how to (give) campaign (speeches), knows nothing about governing.

Uhh, brilliant. Then The Huffington Post’s expert commentary

Midshipmen catch naps as they wait for more than an hour for U.S. President George W. Bush to deliver an address on the war in Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland November 30, 2005. Trying to counter critics of his war strategy, Bush vowed on Wednesday that U.S. forces will not cut and run from Iraq but said improvements in Iraqi security forces may clear the way for a reduction in U.S. troops.

Funny that a Democrat would note Bush wasn’t “on time” (whether this is true or not has not been confirmed) on the heels of the least-timely president in recent memory.
Paul Rieckhoff writes

First, there are still no metrics for success. Our troops must know what objective guidelines will be used to declare that a goal has been reached. They deserve to know that their road home is based on hard data and not just a subjective opinion of success.

Second, a timeline for success must be established. Whether that means one year, two years, or five years, our troops need a realistic time frame in which to achieve a well-defined mission. Without that, our Troops and their families cannot prepare to meet the obligation of our commitment to the Iraqi people.

I don’t think either of these are a realistic assessment of how wars are won, and the first alleged deficiency is duplicative of what Bush said today. The “hard data” is when Iraq is secure and free. No Excel spreadsheet of numbers can be decided upon that would effectuate anything - unless of course you list the names of all the al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and delete them one by one as we kill them, until you reach “zero”.

The time frame is open-ended. Period. If we are able to draw all the terrorists in the Middle East to Iraq to die (as it appears we are doing), it could take some time. Every day we spend doing that is worth it.

Much more liberal defeatism can be found here. Just keep scrolling.

Meanwhile, John Kerry calls for fewer troops.

Sigh.