I didn't get a chance to watch Bush's Iraq speech this evening on TV (it was on @ 6pm PST which is practically the middle of the work day around here ;-) but I did read the transcript.  I have no idea how Dubya's live delivery was, but the transcript is simple, straightforward, powerful, and very compelling.  

In short, I'm very impressed.   I believe this speech marks as critical of milestone in the development of Bush foreign policy as his previous speeches about the Palestinian Authority and later, his speech before the UN General Assembly.

He starts by establishing a clear historical justification for moving on Iraq.   He's laying the groundwork that the authorization for the Gulf War has carried forward to the situation we face today:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction - to cease all development of such weapons - and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.

...Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

At several points in the speech, he directly addresses questions posed to him / his administration:

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action - and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my Administration.

This isn't the language of a cavalier, "detractor-go-to-hell" administration.   Nor is this the language of a President who's retrenching into a defensive position.   He's actively engaging the public and making debate, questioning, and investigation critical parts of the political process.

Bush makes several, independent arguments for "action" in Iraq.   Many of these arguments could, on their own, singularly justify some form of intervention.   However, the "nail in coffin" argument the majority of the public is looking for is a conclusive tie between Al Qaeda and Hussein.   Unfortunately, I found the evidence Bush presented here somewhat lacking and a little to broad / vague:

... We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

The #2 "smoking gun" issue of course is Iraqi nuclear capabilities.   Once again, I found Bush's approach direct and feel he honestly pointed out what is known, unknown, and what is speculation.  Relative to the Iraq/Al Qaeda argument, substantive data and clear evidence of intent are more plentiful w.r.t. Iraq's nuclear ambitions:

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. ...We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program - had a design for a workable nuclear weapon - and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

He also, of course, devotes airtime towards describing and justifying the doctrine of preemption in the face of the incredible risks of modern WMDs.

...Some citizens wonder: after eleven years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing - in fact they would be eager - to use a biological, or chemical weapon, or, when they have one, a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Finally, the Bush administration has clearly heard the (almost deafening) accusations of unilateralism and, in series of points, puts out an arm and an ear to several critical audiences.  

To the Democrats, he cites Patron Saint Kennedy as one of the progenitors of preemption doctrine:

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

He also points out that much of the runway towards aggressive intervention was actually covered during the Clinton administration:

This is why two Administrations - mine and President Clinton's - have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our Nation.

To the Islamic world, he first defuses the oft-quoted allegation that sanctions have killed "millions of Iraqi children":

The world has also tried economic sanctions - and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

He also preempt's Saddam from retreating into a Pan-Islam security blanket by singling him out relative to other Islamic groups residing in Iraq:

When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis, and others will be lifted.

Finally, most importantly, and echo'ing his statements at the UN General Assembly, he makes the point that the primary risk to the legitimacy of the UN is inaction:

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time.

So, my tally on the speech:

(+) Frank, open, honest, apolitical

(+) Reaching out to critics, the public, external audiences

(+) Strong arguments for the inevitability of National Security Risk from Iraq

(+) Defense of Preemption doctrine

(0) No new info on Iraqi nuke / CBW proliferation

(-) Not very convincing in linking Iraq and Al Qaeda / other terrorist organizations

A very good score.

---

Of course, the denouncers had much to say.   Surprisingly, they were ready to pass their verdicts and cast public opinion statements before Bush was finished speaking.

---