Ups and downs on the war

PRESIDENT BUSH’S speech Wednesday on Iraq drew a range of responses from editorial boards. The New York Times and USA Today were disappointed, while the Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor were more optimistic. Most papers, though, saw Bush’s speech at the Naval Academy for what it was -- a public relations offensive.

The Times calls Bush’s assessment on the progress of Iraq’s military “particularly optimistic, and misleading.” Its editorial says Bush missed his big opportunity to admit to a dissatisfied American public that the war isn’t going as planned, proving that the president is more out of touch with Iraq than Richard Nixon was with Vietnam.

USA Today has a similar take: “Perhaps the president thinks he can use the White House megaphone to drown out ... the grim facts of Iraq.” Bush can succeed only if he wins back public support, which, the editorial says, “will take more than cheerleading.”

Those grim facts, though, “are all the more reason for Mr. Bush to stay engaged with the American public in making the case for war, explaining both the progress and the setbacks,” the Journal says. Its editorial lauds Bush’s speech for what the Times says was missing -- more specific details on training Iraqi forces that give the Journal “reasons for optimism in Iraq.”

Finally, the Monitor, unquestioning of Bush’s assessment, paints a rosy picture of progress in Iraq. Its editorial says the president’s new battlefront is a war over “a perception gap between media portrayal of Iraq and what the U.S. military and Iraqi leaders are saying about progress there.”

*

Paul Thornton