While the federal jury in Washington was preparing to bring in its verdict on I. Lewis Libby, we were listening to President Bush give one of the best speeches he’s delivered on the war. He was speaking to a gathering of the American Legion in Washington. Much of the speech dealt with the steps he has taken to deal with the defaults at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The part that caught our attention was his articulation of the broader principles in the war, in which, the president said, the enemy is “fighting to take control of Iraq so they can establish it as a base from which to overthrow moderate governments in the region and plan new attacks on the American people.”

Mr. Bush reiterated his famous line about how, “if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us home.” He spoke of how the nature of the war in Iraq has changed. In 2005, he said, “the terrorists tried and failed to stop the Iraqi people as they held three national elections. They choose a transitional government, they adopted the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then they elected a government under that constitution. So a thinking enemy adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck.”

The president said: “Last February, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity was designed to provoke retaliation from the Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal. This changed the nature of the conflict in Iraq. We still faced the threat from al Qaeda, but the sectarian violence was getting out of hand, and threatened to destroy this young democracy before it had a chance to succeed.”

Mr. Bush said his reaction, last fall, was to order his national security team “to conduct a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq,” which resulted in what he called an approach that is “markedly different.” Of the assignment for General Petraeus, he said it was “too early to judge the success of this operation.” But he cited what he called early encouraging signs, on both the military and political fronts. He discussed the diplomatic front, and then turned pointedly to Washington, where he defined the question as whether the Congress would “stand behind General Petraeus and our troops as they work to secure Baghdad.”

The president noted that the general “was recently confirmed to his post without one single vote against him” in the Senate. “Yet,” the president said, “almost immediately the House passed a resolution that disapproved of his strategy for success in Iraq.” When he said he knew his audience found that “puzzling,” he was met with appreciative laughter. The president said that it may be “the first time in the history of the United States Congress” that the body “voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was critical in winning that battle.”

Said the president: “Some in Congress have called for cutting off funds for our troops, only to find opposition from their colleagues on Capitol Hill. Now others in Congress are planning to use an emergency war spending bill that will provide funds for the war on terror as an opportunity to add on billions of dollars for unrelated domestic programs. Tacking extra domestic spending to an emergency war spending bill only will complicate Congress’ ability to provide the support that our troops urgently need. I ask the Congress to approve the funds we requested and our troops are counting on without strings and without delay.”

The president said: “In the brief history of our nation, we’ve seen freedom remake the world many times, and yet we always seem surprised by the quiet power of our ideals. … Throughout our history, we have gone through tough moments and we have come out stronger on the other side. We’ve been guided by our belief that freedom is not an American privilege, but a value that belongs to all mankind. The struggle in Iraq may be hard, but this should not be a time for despair.” And he spoke of a 25-year-old Marine, Timothy Tardif, who refused medical attention until the battle in which he was gravely wounded had been won, then got up from a hospital bed, called his wife, and told her he was going back to Iraq.