Or what he might have said, to save us all some time:
Senators, during the 1990s, Jihadists attacked US installations, including embassies and a warship, around the world and, in 1993, in New York at the World Trade Centre. In 2001 they attacked New York again, with results you all remember. Since then we have taken the fight to them, in Afghanistan, and we have intervened in Iraq where the Jihadists have of course collected to attack American troops. During this, second, phase the American mainland and other American assets around the world have been relatively free of attacks, although we have had to intervene to prevent a few that were planned.
It is perfectly clear. We can fight the Jihadists in their own territory, or we can fight them in America. We didn't start this conflict, and we can't make it go away. The only choice we have is over where it is fought, and how strong our enemies are when we fight them.
Leaving them alone overseas allowed them to get strong enough to bring down the World Trade Centre. Right now, with renewed commitment and greater troop numbers, we are reducing their effectiveness even in their own territories, and in the process bringing democracy to a country that was tyrannised by one of the most cruel dictators of the twentieth century. It's been tough in Iraq. We have made mistakes and, just like every army fighting every conflict in history, we've had to learn about this new conflict as we go along. But we have been learning, and we are prevailing.
The Iraqis want us to stay and finish the job. If we don't, our enemies will believe themselves to be the victors. They will get new heart and become stronger. They will then attack us, again, in America.
The choice is yours. You can either explain to your voters why you supported a successful military campaign, or you explain to them why they are being killed in their own towns and cities. It's your call.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do.