Bush’s press conference just ended. Lord knows I have criticized his effectiveness at communicating. But what I don’t get is how ANYbody with any rationality or any discernment can watch Bush talking about Iraq and come away believing anything OTHER than that this is a very sincere man, very principled, making what he truly thinks are the best decisions for the national interest, and the best from an idealistic standpoint. Sure, others may argue about his judgment, about his choice of ideals in the first place, or about his competence in trying to put those ideals into effect. But to accuse him of nefarious motives, of hidden agendas, is outrageous.

In this blog post, this time, I’ll leave aside the nitpicking about his verbal delivery, and leave aside the rehashing of earlier decisions, and instead concentrate on the overall message. The message is A) that we must win in Iraq because failure there would be catastrophic for the US national interest AND a humanitarian catastrophe; and B) that we CAN win in Iraq because we already are seeing success in formerly bleak Anbar Province and because Petraeus is a talented and wise general, etc.

Ronald Reagan’s “strategy” for dealing with the Soviets should be applicable to the battle against Islamic terrorists, especially in Iraq: “We win. They lose.” It IS still eminently achievable, if only we show the political will to do so. Let’s stop carping and, on this central issue of our time, start rallying in support of the cause of victory in iraq.