The Minneapolis Star Tribune

presents a fairly balanced take on the President's speech in their front page article. Actually, the main article shouldn't be called a take. It's pure reportage.

Their analysis piece reads more like a Democratic rebuttal.

The trouble with "liberal" [they get the scare quotes, I want that term reapplied to libertarianism] analysis is that it always treats people as mindless members of collectives, unable to make their way in the world without a government program. They're not reckoning with the possibility of the people of Iraq taking control of their own lives, which they are doing.

Here is their editorial position

Editorial: Bush's speech/Simply more of the same:

Did Bush succeed? Not by a long shot. It's arrogant of a president to believe speeches can dispel the skepticism borne of three years of lies and incompetence on the ground. Lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Incompetence in sizing the American troop strength that would be required to pacify Iraq following the inevitably quick opening combat. Incompetence in failing to plan well for dealing with an occupied Iraq. Incompetence in ceding control of American foreign policy to a small cabal of self-delusional neoconservatives who threw traditional American pragmatism -- conservative pragmatism -- overboard in favor of grandiose plans for remaking the Middle East into a peaceful, democratic region in one fell swoop.

Bush's speech was spectacular for its refusal to retreat from that wholly discredited vision. Throughout his speech, he continued his effort to wrap the war in Iraq in the war on terror. At this late date, just five weeks from the return of some sovereignty to Iraq, Bush refuses to acknowledge what is plain: The war in Iraq had no relationship to the war on terror; it was a distraction from the essential war on Al-Qaida and other terrorists who wish America harm. At one point, Bush referred to Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terror. If it is, that is so only because the United States invaded, and it will cease to be so once the United States leaves.

Talk about more of the same.

I listened to the President's speech and thought it was pretty good, other than stumbling over "Abu Ghraib" (it makes you wonder if he's ever used the words before, though I'm worse at public speaking than he is, so I'm inclined to forgive that sort of gaff). There was little that was new to anybody who follows the war at all, but in it he clearly stated the steps we, America, our allies and the people of Iraq, must take to achieve Democracy in Iraq.

Here are the steps President Bush listed, exerpted from the speech:

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections.

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis.
...
By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires.

We want Iraqi forces to gain experience and confidence in dealing with their country's enemies. We want the Iraqi people to know that we trust their growing capabilities, even as we help build them.

The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life.

Our coalition has already helped Iraqis to rebuild schools and refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system. And now a growing private economy is taking shape.

The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition.

Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government.

The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January.

A United Nations team, headed by Carina Perelli, is now in Iraq, helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election.

Bush spoke pretty confidently about the UN resolution. That is the weak point in the plan, but hopefully the national interests of those who obstructed us in the past will overcome their pique at having been bypassed.

I notice that the timeline ends in January, just about the time of the inauguration of our next President. The election will hinge on our confidence in this plan, but it is to be hoped that whoever takes over, will find this task completed, with only minor mop-ups needed. Then, maybe we could afford to ignore the problem of terrorism for another eight years.