Not Going Anywhere

There were several straw-man arguments. For instance:

"Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, quote, 'Stay the course.'

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean, 'We will not allow the terrorists to break our will,' they're right.

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean, 'We will not permit Al Qaida to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America,' they're right, as well.

"If by 'Stay the course,' they mean that we're not learning from our experiences or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong."

My understanding is that by "stay the course" at least some of his critics mean remaining obstinately and indefinitely in a quagmire, where our presence just makes things worse.

Pre-Speech Coverage

On ABC this morning, Charlie Gibson spoke with George Stephanopoulous and Terry Moran.

Gibson: "George, the administration doesn't like the phrase 'exit strategy.' Now they are calling this speech and others that will follow a victory strategy. Is there any difference?"

Stephanopoulous: "All the difference in the world to the administration, Charlie, because 'exit strategy' in their minds implies failure, or at least indifference to victory -- and the president and his whole team want to burn in the notion that we are only going to leave Iraq when the Iraqis are able to defend themselves and they have a stable country. But it is clear, Charlie, that part of this strategy is to convince the American people that there is reason for hope and that American troops can come home relatively soon."

Moran added that Bush "has a credibility problem. Too many times, the American people have heard things are getting great, the insurgency's just about defeated, and it hasn't been."

Kelly O'Donnell reported on NBC: "Aides say they now think the president's past speeches on Iraq may have been too broad, allowing dissatisfaction and calls for troop reduction to grow. Releasing new details is an effort to show that a possible drawdown of U.S. forces has been in the works, and is not a response to critics. . . .

"Senior advisers say releasing this information now is important because much of it dates back to 2003. The intention is to show that there has been a plan all along."