Here's what one of my favorite bloggers, John from Powerline, had to say about the President's speech:

I thought President Bush was back on his game tonight. The speech was a reminder that it's a good thing to be President. When he offered a sentence about Iraq that ended with the word "victory," the Democrats had no alternative but to stand up and cheer.

Apart from the ceremonial trappings, there was a good reason why so many Senators and Congressmen had to voice their approval: the President's logic was compelling. The importance of Iraq; the disastrous consequences of failure; the grave long-term stakes in the Global War on Terror; and the need to give our new strategy a chance to succeed, are all hard to dissent from.

The President finished strong, with his introduction of a series of American heroes, the kind of thing he does best.

It was a good night for President Bush. Will it matter? I doubt that very many people who are on the fence were watching. But for the President's long-term supporters and for all who are serious about winning the war that has been thrust upon us, it was an inspiring, confidence-renewing performance.

Here's the part of the State of the Union address that deals with the "long war" against the terrorists:

For all of us in this room, there’s no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We’ve had time to take stock of our situation. We’ve added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us, unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.
From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing and free-flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an Al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an Al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.
For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before Sept. 11 and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: “We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse.” And Osama bin Laden declared: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah, a group second only to Al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom: societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies, and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must.

(this is getting pretty long, so I'll continue it in the next posting)

The section on the war on terrorism, continued:

In the last two years, we’ve seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East, and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution and they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections [Background]. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature [Background]. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections: choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution [Background]. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces [Background]. In Iraq, Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam, the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia, and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We’re carrying out a new strategy in Iraq: a plan that demands more from Iraq’s elected government and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where Al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we’re sending an additional 4,000 United States marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We didn’t drive Al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

Continued in the next post...

the part of the State of the Union speech about the war on terror, continued:

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it’s time for their government to act. Iraq’s leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad, and they must do so. They’ve pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. And they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq’s leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation: to share oil revenues among all of Iraq’s citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s civic life, to hold local elections and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of Sept. 11 and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I’ve spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you’ve made. We went into this largely united in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field and those on their way.
The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that’s why it’s important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. That’s why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We’ll show our enemies abroad that we’re united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American armed forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

To me, Bush's speech raises a lot of questions about his grip on reality.

For example, Bush says that "the enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing and free-flowing communications are long over." What? Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders seem to have found a pretty comfortable sanctuary in the lawless region along the Pakistani-Afghan border. And the Taliban seem to be moving pretty easily back and forth across that border. The fact that they have food and weaponry and continue to taunt the west with professionally-produced video rants suggested to me that they're neither underfinanced nor hindered in their communications.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen...And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. Why is Bush taking credit for the British stopping this plot against the U.S.? He doesn't mention that the plot was stopped only because British muslims tipped off British authorities. He ought be thanking them, not patting himself on the back.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.
Bush errs egregiously by lumping in Shias and Sunnis as part of one big monolithic terror threat to the U.S. Just as Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime were incompatible opposites and opponents, Al Qaeda has very different objectives, methods, and resources than Hezbollah and its Iranian patrons. Al Qaeda is a stateless, decentralized movement with largely autonomous franchises in various countries around the world. Hezbollah controls much of Lebanon, where it acts as a de facto provider of social services as well as an armed militia. I could go on about their differences, but the point is that Bush's analysis is precisely the sort of arrogant naivete that got us into such big trouble in Iraq.

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom: societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies, and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy.

Bush is talking complete nonsense here. The adminstration is making a sham of promoting democracy in the Middle East, even as it nurtures alliances with and supports authoritarian regimes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If the Middle East had free elections, many, if not all, of the countries in the region would elect regimes filled with Islamic radicals--not the America-loving moderates that Bush talks about. I've got to wonder if he even believes what he is saying.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back.

Bush would like us to think that everything was going great in Iraq until those terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque. The truth is that sectarian strife already had erupted in Iraq, and the bombing just fanned the flames.

Iraq’s leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad, and they must do so. They’ve pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. And they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq’s leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation: to share oil revenues among all of Iraq’s citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s civic life, to hold local elections and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

In other words, the Iraqi government is going to do what it has failed to do several times before, because this time we're telling them that our commitment isn't open-ended. Why are they going to take us any more seriously this time? After all, we let them off the hook in the past, and they have to know Bush has already said that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq as long as he's president. Maliki and his Shia supporters can't even give a presentation on his security plan to Parliament without it turning into a screaming argument with the Sunni minority, so forgive me if I suspect that the present Iraqi regime isn't going to accomplish much in the way or reconciliation. As for the Iraqi government deploying more of its own troops to secure Baghdad and confront insurgents "of any faction," I'll believe that when I see it. If the Iraqis had the ability and will to do that, we wouldn't have to send 17,500 more U.S. troops to Baghdad. What we're likely to see instead is a stepped-up, increasingly bloody urban war in which U.S. troops are doing most of the fighting--and dying.

I think the President's plan in Iraq ought to be given a chance to work. At least he HAS a plan, as opposed to all these Democrats who just want to pull the troops out tomorrow. That's not a plan for anything but defeat.

Bondlee, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt right up until the last line. But "thrust upon us?" Yes, Afghanistan. But in Iraq, we were the thrusters (is that a word? Is decider?)