“WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SECURITY, we really don’t need anybody’s permission.” The most significant statement so far in Bush’s news conference.

UPDATE: Not much of a performance, razzle-dazzle-wise, even for Bush.

Downside: He looked tired, distracted, and not especially interested in being there, even for Bush.

Upside: He looked very sincere, deeply concerned (showing a very real desire to avoid war and a real sensitivity to civilian casualties), while the questioners, as always, looked smug and irritating and superficial, making Bush look better by contrast.

He made some very simple points: Saddam was supposed to disarm, and hasn’t. He’s a threat to the United States, and the risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of doing something. And the United States will play out the UN game, and won’t let France, Russia, et al., off the hook, but will ultimately act in its own self-defense regardless.

I don’t think he changed any minds. People who saw him, though, will find it hard to see him as a thoughtless warmonger.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg thinks this was for foreign consumption.

ANOTHER UPDATE: David Hogberg comments. And Nelson Ascher emails from Zurich:

I’ve just seen Bush’s performance on TV. Whoever expected something in the Churchillian vein must have been disappointed. And I’d say that was quite intelligent. Why? Because the Churchillian style works well once you’re already in the midst of total war. Otherwise it may sound demagogic and, for those who disagree, as pure warmongering. What seemed to be Bush’s goal was not only to disarm his national and foreign critics but to show the non-bellicist face of a country that only goes into war reluctantly

The point is: day by day the so called pacifists look more agressive, more filled with hate. Indeed, it is as if they were those who were at war: against America. Bush has chosen exactly not to answer them in kind, stressing the protesters’ right to protest, the allies’ right to disagree and, of course, his own right to think differently. He didn’t threaten France, Germany, Russia and so on: and that is very good. Many questions were about those countries’ attitudes and he managed not to answer them without ever giving the impression he was running away from an argument: on the contrary, he spoke as a grown-up underlining that we shouldn’t be too tough on the kids because, well, they’re nothing but kids.

I don’t know if this will work in Europe, although it won’t be easy to use his performance to portray the president as a bloodthirsty imperialistic murderer. But I think that it reassures the domestic audience that the decision to go to war is being taken in a serious, sober, dispassionate way.

Well, that supports the “it’s aimed abroad” theory. Meanwhile Stephen Pollard writes in The Telegraph that the U.S. (and Britain?) may stage a U.N. walkout if the obstructionists carry the day at the Security Council:

Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a “temporary” suspension of America’s membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.

Interesting. Here’s a transcript of the speech. And here’s a Chirac response. Heh.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Nathan Traxler emails:

You obviously watched it on TV, and drew much of President Bush’s comments based upon his appearance. I was running at 5pm today, and listened to it during Hugh Hewitt’s daily broadcast on the radio. Therefore, I couldn’t see him, only hear him. I had no clue where the following statement came from:

“He looked tired, distracted, and not especially interested in being there, even for Bush.” -instapundit.com

He did not come off tired or distracted on the radio. In fact, he came off pensive and genuine, in the face of some really tough questions. I feel that the real George Bush came through quite well through the radio, and felt that the contrast from his normal speeches was actually refreshing. He responded to every reporter consistantly, and stuck to his guns no matter how offensive the premise of the question. He sounded different than he usually does in the media, and to my ears, much better.

Interesting.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Zach Barbera wasn’t impressed. On the other hand, I got this email:

I am an American who has lived in Japan since 1984. I’ve been watching presidential speeches for a while (I saw JFK’s inaugural speech live as a 6th grader; we were off from school because it was a snow day).

I know that I do not see many speeches by American politicians lately. Perhaps your opinion is due to the frequency with which you see speeches from Bush and others. But–

I do not think I have seen a more direct, plain-spoken, and eloquent speech by a US president in my life. Richard Nixon used to say, “let me be perfectly clear…”. Well, George W. Bush actually _was_ perfectly clear, and seemed perfectly sincere. I was very impressed, and also very moved.

Bill Sakovich

Saga, Japan

And he wasn’t listening on the radio.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus explains Bush’s manner.