Okay, so it’s the next day. In blogging as in life, I am rarely to be considered timely.
Bush’s speech was not a home run, not an A+, not a perfect 10, not even his best speech ever. It was, however, pretty damned good. Bush’s presence and delivery was solid, even through the enthusiasm-sucking, domestic agenda-defining first half. This part wasn’t too shabby, but it paled to Bush’s stepping into Commander-in-Chief mode in the latter part of the speech.
The speech was well written, and I’ve gone through the transcript for the parts that jumped out at me last night.
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people.
If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy.
This will not happen on my watch.
You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands — a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system.
In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.
Please. Pretty please.
Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it’s easy to remember: georgewbush.com.
A silly line, but it was delivered well and worked.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for.
He’s proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that’s a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
Why zing just one Taxachusetts liberal when you can zing two?
And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
For me, this is the second most important issue in this election. Only a successful prosecution of the war on Islamic terror is paramount to who gets to fill the anticipated Supreme Court openings.
And I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make: Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman…
AUDIENCE: No.
BUSH: … or do I take action to defend our country?
Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.
From my vantage, it wasn’t a choice. It was a strategic necessity.
Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word.
As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them.
And that helps us keep the peace.
So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear. We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.
This is why Iraq is essential in the war against terror. Afghanistan may have been far more integrated and affiliated with al-Queda, but Iraq had the greater resources and infrastructure in place to build a successful and sustainable democracy. A bright, shining city in the middle of Mordor. This, along with all the reasons given by the president in the past to justify the campaign, is why I supported the opening of the Iraqi theater.
When asked to explain his vote, the senator said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”
Then he said he was “proud” of his vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a “complicated” matter.
There’s nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.
This was an effective jab.
Also, little if any attention has been paid to Kerry’s later explanation of his vote, an explanation I find even more disgusting.
Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called American allies, quote, a “coalition of the coerced and the bribed.”
That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others…
… allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician.
Ouch! Apparently, the Kerry brand of diplomacy means insulting current allies and, afterwards, planning to somehow entice new ones. Another effective moment for the president.
Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.
They know that men and women with hope and purpose and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent.
As I argued above. Second verse, same as the first.
America has done this kind of work before, and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times wrote this: “Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed,” end quote.
Maybe that same person is still around, writing editorials.
A shot at the Times is always good for this crowd.
In the last four years — in the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don’t agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.
You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English.
I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it.
Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called “walking.”
As a Texan, this was my favorite line of the night. Very effective self-denigrating humor here, also.
I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I’ve held the children of the fallen who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.
I’ve met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers and to offer encouragement to me.
Where does that strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost.
Simply powerful. The viewer could see the emotion in the heart of the president, as well.
We see America’s character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again.
Is it any wonder why so many in the military love this man? What a man looks for in heroes speaks volumes about his own character.
This young century will be liberty’s century.
Selling a message, an optimistic one at that.
Bush brought this speech home in a rousing manner. Put bluntly, whether the left likes it or believes it, this man is a leader.
If it’s not too late, go read Stephen Green’s live blogging of the speech (46 posts, I don’t know how many drinks). I hope he does more of the same with the debates.
