I was traveling and unable to see Blair’s speech. I’m genuinely bummed since I’m a sucker for great political speeches and there’s little doubt that Blair is the great political orator of his generation.

After reading accounts of the speech and the speech itself, I imagine a lot of folks who have had their doubts about the war – and even some who were vehemently opposed to it – pausing to think hard about what the Prime Minister had to say. The extraordinarily bright and perceptive liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias, recently wrote (well before the Blair speech to Congress):

As ever, the Iraq venture sounds a lot more sensible when Prime Minister Blair talks about it than when President Bush does…

I know a lot of people who feel that way – who are uncomfortable with what Bush wants to do because Bush doesn’t always articulate his aims in a way that rings nicely on the ears. But as an exercise in intellectual honesty, when weighing the merits of an action – such as going to war in Iraq – isn’t it incumbent on us to consider the merits of the best case itself? Maybe Bush doesn’t inspire as much confidence as Blair. But for liberals of good faith, how is it that Blair is unpersuasive?