Wny bother eviscerating Commander Chimpy's speech when Ms. Z has already done so? I particularly liked the reference to the dips at PowerWank, who wrote (in part):
There was nothing in it that we and our readers didn't already know ...
Apparently, the boys at PowerWank didn't get Scott McClellan's memo (via First Draft):
Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success? Is there a new direction, or is the President basically summing up what he has said before?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place.
Q Well, I guess what I'm asking is, are people going to hear things they haven't heard the President say before? Are there new details?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think many Americans have not heard much of what the President has to say tomorrow night.
Q The question is, is there a new direction, though, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: You're going to hear from the President tomorrow night. I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is. It's an opportunity for the American people to hear about the strategy... blah blah blah ...
Dontcha just hate it when you're left out of the loop? Man, that's gotta sting.
AFTERSNARK: I'm amused by Michelle Malkin's searing, in-depth, provocative analysis of Bush's "new speech," which talked in a "very specific way" about the "strategy." Malkin's insight:
Just finished watching the speech with my kids. Good speech. Important messages:
* We're winning.
* We have more work to do.
* America is grateful to the troops...and so is the commander-in-chief.
See, that's why Michelle's a world-class conservative pundit, and you're not.