It's a little astonishing that so much of the Democratic reaction to Bush's Strategy for Victory speech is focused on the supposed flaw of determination.

Ken Mehlman aggregates:

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] Issued A Statement Claiming That Bush 'Recycled His Tired Rhetoric Of "Stay The Course" And Once Again Missed An Opportunity To Lay Out A Real Strategy For Success In Iraq That Will Bring Our Troops Safely Home.'" (Deb Riechmann, "President Bush Defends His Embattled War Policy," The Associated Press, 11/30/05)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "Today's Action By The White House Isn't A Step Forward, It's A Step Back ... This Is Not A Strategy, And It Certainly Is Not A Plan To Complete The Military Mission In Iraq." (Sen. Russ Feingold, "Statement On The President's Speech Today," Press Release, 11/30/05)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): "The President Relied Too Much Upon Rhetoric, Upon A Laundry List Of Tasks Accomplished, Not A Coherent View Of Where We Are Realistically And Where We Must Go To Succeed. It Was More Generalities Than Specifics." (Sen. Jack Reed, Press Conference, 11/30/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "The Truth Is That The President Draws A False Line In Trying To Make His Case To America." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 11/30/05)

Kerry: "The President ... Gave Us The Same Talk About Simply Staying As Long As It Takes To Get Them To Stand Up." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 11/30/05)

Rather than offer any concrete (or even mushy) alternative strategy (other than to abandonment), these detractors simply fold their arms, shut their eyes, and shake their heads whenever the administration has something to say.

While there indeed wasn't a ton of new information in the speech or the accompanying document, there oughtn't have been. We already know what the general strategy is in Iraq (the so-called "8 Pillars"). Democratic naysayers' thirst for a "coherent view" doesn't seem to be quenchable shy of either laying out a step-by-step tactical gameplan (and thus showing all of our cards to the enemy) or shrugging and throwing in the towel.

The administration suggested today's address would be the first in a series of many, but it seems to me it's energy wasted. That which we need to know, we either already know or are refusing to hear. That which we don't need to know, we don't want to know.

I'm all for maximum practical transparency, so long as it doesn't compromise our strategic position. But when even such unusually accomodating, multimedia festivals of information fail to quell undermining critics whose talking points outweigh their alternatives, your requirement has been nonetheless satisfied.

As Jonathan notes below, there are other messages that need amplification.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/2638