President Bush will be on TV tonight taking credit for the fact that, next summer, the 30,000 additional troops who made up his "surge" in Iraq will be coming home next summer. Never mind that a surge is, by definition, a temporary thing--the truth is that our armed forces can't keep that many soldiers deployed there for that long anyway. They're already dangerously close to being overtired, overwhelmed, and overexposed. Of course, he'll also be touting General Petraeus's conclusions that the surge is working, in spite of the fact that the general's statistics are a complete reversal of other, possibly more nonpartisan statistics, the fact that the stated point of the surge, when Bush announced it, was to give the Iraqi government breathing space to do things it still has not done, and the fact that the general's only truly glowing words were for Anbar province, which he already told us in January--pre-surge--was improving. Part of why it's improving is that it's already been largely ethnically cleansed--when only Sunnis are left in a region, then there's likely to be less Sunni vs. Shia bloodshed.
So we know what Bush will say, and we already know basically what's wrong with what he will say. The only real reason to watch is to see what he'll screw up.
But after Bush's speech, John Edwards will be speaking on MSNBC about his take on the war and what needs to be done about it. Bush's speech will be carried on most networks, but Edwards is buying the MSNBC time, because he feels it's important to provide a strong antiwar voice (and because, frankly, he needs to catch up to Obama and Clinton in the national polling, although he's doing well in early primary states). I've seen Edwards talk about the war, and he's an impressive speaker. If, after the president's speech, you feel the need to see someone who can speak English, and make sense doing it, tune in to MSNBC.