Reactions from Bush's speech

In Iowa City, the big story may have been "Judge:Family Can Give Son's Semen to Fiancee"--but others had this story:


LA TIMES: BUSH REDEFINES 'VICTORY'

For more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: "Victory."

But this week, the word "victory" disappeared from the president's lexicon. It was replaced by a slightly more ambiguous goal: "Success."...

Bush's description of his war aims reflected two hard realities about his position on Iraq.

First, a large majority of the American public does not believe "victory" is possible. Dozens of opinion polls have found that fewer than 40% of voters think the war can be won.

Second, the men who are running the war - Army Gen David H Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker - made it clear this week that their immediate goals were more limited than "victory."...

Bush's target was not so much his opposition in the Democratic Party as the increasing number of war critics in his own Republican Party.

USA TODAY: BUSH BUYS MORE TIME TO MAKE MARK IN IRAQ

With this year's "surge" of US forces and this week's testimony by Gen David Petraeus, President Bush is getting what he wants on Iraq: More time.

Despite predictions after last year's election setbacks that he would have no choice but to reduce troop levels and limit the US mission, Bush continues to stake his presidency on the chance for a military and political turnaround in Iraq before he leaves office...

Bush's tone was determinedly positive. He used versions of the word "success" 10 times and of the word "progress" six times...

So far, the Democratic-controlled Congress hasn't been able to muster enough Republican votes to break a Senate filibuster and pass legislation that would force Bush to change course. Petraeus' unflappable demeanor and the reduction of violence in Anbar province and elsewhere has stanched the erosion of Republican support for now.

NEW YORK TIMES: MULTIPLE MESSAGES AND AUDIENCES

President Bush addressed three very different audiences (the American public, the Iraqi government and the insurgents) and he had to hope that each would hear a different message...

Mr Bush's speech was the culmination of a month long, highly orchestrated game plan to change the political debate in Washington and the country. But in the end, the speech once again raised the question of what America's mission in Iraq really is - and how long it will last.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: NO EXIT, NO STRATEGY

Last night's speech could have been given any day in the last four years - and was delivered a half-dozen times already...

Once again, it is clear that President Bush refuses to recognize the truth of his failure in Iraq and envisions a military commitment that has no end...

The presidential candidates, as well, have a duty to take Iraq head-on. Democrats have started to talk in some detail about how they would end the war but the burden is not just on the war critics.

Republicans like Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain, who love to proclaim their support for the president and hide behind his troops, need to explain their vision as well.

WASHINGTON TIMES: BUSH TO START PULLOUT

President Bush last night said the US military's success in Iraq has made it possible to begin withdrawing some troops but noted that future withdrawals will be based on continued success and renewed his call on Iraqi leaders to take control of their country...

Mr Bush sought to cast the current moment in Iraq as a turning point in the war, and even in US history, and exhorted critics not to give up.

WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL: THE LEAST BAD PLAN

President Bush's explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions.

First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of US. troops into Iraq has been a failure - because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible...

Mr Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops... that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments...

Mr Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order.

For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that US troops will "return on success" in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: "Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse."

TIME: A BUSH SPEECH THAT COULD BACKFIRE

President George W Bush's decision to give a major speech on Iraq in prime time Thursday night made sense on one level. The news has been relatively positive for a change, what with the stabilization in Anbar province and parts of Baghdad...

But Bush's trumpeting of what he called a "return on success" could end up backfiring. Bringing the war into America's living rooms is never a safe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bush himself still is not.