ninme

Yay! He did really well! More later. (Btw, I got choked up at the end, too.) (sniffle.)

Okay, I think it was a really good speech. And he only messed up two or three times, which helps. He sounded confident, and a little pissed off, fired up, if you prefer. This was smart:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Usama bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

Sort of, “Don’t believe me? Ask Osama-sama.” Tough to argue with that. Especially when most anti-war types keep screeching that Osama bin Laden is the legitimate target (the source of which is their belief that this is ultimately a law-enforcement thing, btw).

This was good:

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, “There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.”

Using Germany as an example, by name. It would have helped when he was talking about, “America and our friends” he might have listed them by name. Give a human face to the other people caught up in this. “You want us to leave? But then what would happen to Australia?” Not many people could turn their backs on Australia, but they could disregard “friends.” Especially when most of them get their news from John Kerry, who thinks we have no friends and desperately need them.

He didn’t get as specific about what the Iraqis are doing, mainly concentrating in broad terms what we’re doing in Iraq, but that’s okay. It’s not like he’s Arthur Chrenkoff. Although the whole reason we’re here is because the press presents the violence in that country like the Iraqi people are all squatting in hovels while our soldiers stand around bored, not doing anything, as devious and intrepid insurgents sneak up and blow them all up, which causes people to wonder, “what are we doing there?” and “why can’t we just leave?” So, I would have liked specifics. But that’s all. A mere quibble.

Update:

I love listening to Hugh Hewitt, but I can’t read him. I think it’s because he’s a lawyer. He will not get to the point. I’m a very busy person (no I’m not). But sometimes it’s worth muddling through, and he does have some good links. Citizen Smash, for instance. NRO’s good, starting about here, and scrolling up.

Apparently Ried brought up Osama as our most dangerous enemy. Somehow, I doubt it. I think he’s about as effective a leader as the Queen is in Canada. They nod and smile when she speaks, but they’ve got more immediate things to worry about. Osama’s only a target (relatively speaking) because we feel he needs to be punished, which means we feel he’s committed a crime and needs to be prosecuted, which is a bit distracting during a war. You do the war trials afterwards, not during.

(Note: the above was not a learned military opinion.)

Oh, and by the way, no one seems to have seen the same things I would have changed. I’m so unique. A visionary. A diamond in the rough. (I figure no one’s still reading this, so what the heck.) A genius without peer.

Update II (June 29): Bill found someone that thought what I thought. There goes my singularity.