Fear.

That and that defeat is an orphan. American's have not waged a long term war since Vietnam, and long term wars erode morale. It is vital for a President to explain war objectives, properly set expectations, guard against overconfidence, and rally the homefront. For the most part, I think President Bush has done a terrible job with all of them.

The entire debate about missing WMD is his fault. We can make all the noise we want that was not the real reason we invaded, but it's obviously what the public heard. His stunt landing on the carrier told people the war was over, but fighting later intensified. And as you have stated, his interests are domestic issues and his persistence on promoting them divides the electorate and weakens support.

While Bush has important virtues in a war leader - willingness to fight and certainly resolution - he also makes the war harder by his other failings.

These nay-sayers get listened to because they parrot the party line of our preppy and Fabian Europhile pseudo-elites. The underlying doctrine is that if it makes sense to a normal American/colonial/barbarian, then it must be wrong.

But we're losing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris - and Bush's failure to communicate effectively to the public on the war had nothing to do with a media largely hostile to him and the opposition party using the war for its own political advantage?

Chris:

We waged the Cold War for another fifteen years after Vietnam. All the same things were said of Reagan while we were winning it.

When the world view of the major media owners mirrors that of those who were wrong about Vietnam then and wrong about the WOT today, it's easy for them to get a platform to voice their opinions.

The fact that anyone else listens to them is due to the long-held belief by so many in the general public that if someone is on television (or quoted in newspapers) they must have some idea of what they're talking about. The rise of alternative outlet for news is breaking down that belief, but it still exists in the minds of many (if it didn't, "60 Minutes" would have about a .2 rating by now).

The media has made itself part of the democratic party, in reflexive opposition to everything Bush tries to do.

Every time Bush speaks, a dozen anti-Bush pundits are given more than equal time to attempt to reinterpret and denigrate Bush's underlying message.

To the idiots who depend on the media to get the message, Bush comes across as terrible. To the more intelligent ones who make use of the many alternative sources of information, Bush is adequate to the task.

AWW - I have limited patience with leaders who complain they can't lead because no one listens to them. The problem is not with some other, but themselves. Leaders find a way, they don't find excuses. A lot of the trouble Bush has is his own creation - he was given a lot of leeway after 9/11 and squandered much of it.

OJ - I can't tell if you're still talking about the critics of the war or the points I raised about the President's failings. None of my points would apply to Reagan who did quite well in restoring morale during the Cold War and controlling the press agenda.

There is no liberal media monopoly anymore. Fox News, various magazines, and online media gives the President access to quite friendly media.

I'm speaking about the frustration I hear from people who are not kneejerk against the war; we want to win. But people are very unclear about what is happening in Iraq and what we are doing about it. Many are confused to how Iraq fits into the longer view on the War on Terror.

The President is not communicating effectively. Commentary by bloggers who hope to fill in the rhetoric gaps will not do it. It needs to come from on top.

LBJ couldn't do it and turned a war we should have won into a defeat. FDR and Reagan did it quite well. There were all sorts of terrible foul ups and mistakes made in WWII, but FDR did enough work that the defeatists didn't have a chance.

Chris:

How old are you? This is exactly what America was like in the Reagan years, with Democrats baying that he was a dangerously stupid madman who'd provoke WWIII and leading us into another Vietnam in Central America. all while we fell behind the Japanese economically, thanks to our huge deficits and tax cuts for the rich.

Bush communicates in exactly the same way as Reagan did and when he leaves office with the Middle East reforming away will be called a great communicator.

Chris:

Do you want Bush to be a more effective communicator?

And what OJ said - when I was in college, while Reagan was President, there was a large paper-mache missile permanently placed in front of the Methodist Student Center. There was a lot of propaganda back then: Reagan was the facist gun in the West, Yuri Andropov liked modern art, Daniel Ortega was a democrat, and so on.

Lou Cannon is in town and made an interesting remark to a Hawaii Public Radio interviewer, to the effect that Reagan would never have gone to war against an enemy like Iraq, that he cut and ran (not Cannon's words, which were more respectful) from Beirut and told Cannon that the thought of losing American boys' lives was the most troubling event of his career.

Well, I wouldn't have put it that way, but Reagan was notable for not picking fights with anybody in his weight class; and for sitting out his big chance to be an Army man himself.

Still, I think Cannon's on to something there.

He was an army man. He also warned that Islamicism would have to be dealt with as he'd handled Communism.

He wore the uniform as a costume, like all his other clothes.