President Bush took his magic act on the road last night. Unfortunately, the big finale–where he draws a curtain over September 11, and out pops Iraq–didn’t wow everyone.

Also last night the President appealed to young people to join up. “There is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces,” he said. I’m sure this will inspire a generation of young Republicans to write letters to the troops, or at least send postcards, or maybe just think about the troops once in a while. ‘Twould be nice.

The theater critics weigh in:

Peter Baker and Dana Milbank, Washington Post:

Bush invoked Sept. 11 five times in his speech and referred to it by implication several more times. Although he has previously agreed with investigators that there is “no evidence” of a link between Saddam Hussein’s government and the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, he used much of his speech to depict the militants in Iraq as the same breed of Islamic terrorist who struck the United States. The White House titled his remarks a discussion on the “War on Terror,” not Iraq.

“This war reached our shores on September 11th, 2001,” Bush said. “The terrorists who attacked us — and the terrorists we face — murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom.” He added that many of the insurgents in Iraq “are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania.”

The address continued a shift in the administration’s emphasis as it has justified the Iraq war, beginning with the threat posed by Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction, continuing to the need to promote democracy in the Middle East and now suggesting a more seamless link to the attacks on American soil.

“The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden,” Bush said Tuesday night, referring to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the insurgent leader in Iraq. Bush quoted bin Laden calling the Iraq conflict a “third world war” and added that terrorists “are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11th, 2001.”

Ronald Brownstein, Los Angeles Times:

More than two years ago, Bush argued that Saddam Hussein’s control over Iraq could make the nation a haven for terrorists. But in his nationally televised speech, Bush asserted that the tumult that has followed Hussein’s removal created the same threat. …

… By completing “the mission,” Bush declared, “we will prevent Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.”

That argument drew instant scorn from some Democrats, who argued that Bush was defending the continued military operations on the basis of a threat that did not exist before the invasion. …

Tim Grieve, Salon:

What the president said about 9/11 wasn’t false, exactly; White House speechwriters are better than that. The president talked about the war that “reached our shores” on 9/11, the speech that he gave after 9/11, the Americans who died on 9/11, the “lessons” that we learned from 9/11, the way that the terrorists tried to “shake our will” on 9/11 and, once again, the speech that he gave after 9/11.

Bush didn’t say Tuesday night that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but he didn’t have to, either. His administration has spread that phony story so many times before — sometimes explicitly, more often through the sort of guilt-by-association game the president played at Fort Bragg — that the president’s supporters have long since internalized it.

Ellis Henican, New York Newsday:

In his prime-time talk, the president did finally acknowledge a growing public distaste for his war: “I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future.”

But he pinned his defense of the war policy almost entirely on a single, discredited connection, the claim that Iraq was tied to Sept. 11.

He cited the terror attacks repeatedly. He even quoted Osama bin Laden, who had about as much connection to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as Pancho Villa did to Imperial Japan.

“We are fighting against men with blind hatred - and armed with lethal weapons - who are capable of any atrocity,” Bush told 750 soldiers and airmen in the base gymnasium. “They are trying to shake our will in Iraq - just as they tried to shake our will on Sept. 11, 2001. They will fail.”

They? Well, you know, whomever.

Editorial, New York Times:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking.

Editorial, New York Daily News:

The only other arrow in Bush’s quiver is the support for his handling of the overall war on terror. That explains why he frequently linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. He didn’t come out and say Iraq was directly involved; rather, he said “the only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of Sept.11 - if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi - and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden.”

That’s a slick phrasing that aims to remind people why they initially supported the war. But the burden now is a litany of false claims that, at best, make the war’s execution look inept.

Start with the “Mission Accomplished” banner of May 1, 2003, when the President jauntily declared an end to major combat operations. At that time, 140 American troops had been killed. Or consider Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s claim six weeks later that only “dead-enders” were obstructing us. Some 200 were dead then. Then came Vice President Cheney’s recent foolish claim that the insurgency is in “its last throes.”

None of those things turned out to be true. And unless Bush can soon show major, clear progress, last night’s speech will either be forgotten or become one more mark against him.

Leader, The Guardian:

Vietnam is often mentioned. If there have to be comparisons, Malaya might be a better one, although it was far less violent. But Vietnam is relevant in the sense that, although no politician, official or soldier would ever use the phrase “light at the end of the tunnel”, that is beginning to be the message from Washington. Again and again the administration has proclaimed that the war would be over once some necessary stage was passed, whether it was the formation of a government, the drafting of a constitution or the completion of some phase in the training of Iraqi forces. Yet the bombs keep on going off, the mortars keep on coming in, and the bullets keep on finding their marks, often enough in the bodies of Sunni moderates. Now George Bush and his associates are using different words, long haul words, tunnel words. General John Abizaid, the US commander in the Middle East, stated in congressional evidence that the insurgency was just as strong as it was six months ago. A CIA report has suggested that Iraq is training a new generation of jihadists. And Donald Rumsfeld now says, with the assumed wisdom that is his stock in trade and without admitting for one moment that he has ever said anything different, that everybody knows that insurgencies go on for years. President Bush, making yet another speech on Iraq yesterday, is emphasising the themes of endurance and patience.

Editorial, Los Angeles Times:

President Bush’s pep talk to the nation Tuesday night was a major disappointment. He again rewrote history by lumping together the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for war in Iraq, when, in fact, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. Bush spoke of “difficult and dangerous” work in Iraq that produces “images of violence and bloodshed,” but he glossed over the reality of how bad the situation is. He offered no benchmarks to measure the war’s progress, falling back on exhortations to “complete the mission” with a goal of withdrawing troops “as soon as possible.”

David Corn, The Nation:

Bush continued to maintain that Iraq is “a central front in the war on terror.” How did he prove this case? He quoted Osama bin Laden, who once said, “This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war.” You see, Bush attacked Iraq (which had no weapons of mass destruction and no operational ties to the terrorists who mounted the horrific attacks of 9/11), a war ensued, Islamic fundamentalists rushed to Iraq to do battle with the Americans, bin Laden welcomed this opportunity to have his followers kill US troops (who might otherwise be coming after him or securing Afghanistan), and that is Bush’s proof the war in Iraq is “a central front in the war on terror.” In essence, because bin Laden said so after Bush invaded Iraq.

[Cross posted on The Mahablog]