Press conference aweigh.

NEW YORK, APRIL 16

SUPPORTERS of our enterprise in Iraq are whispering to themselves, "What could Bush do to impress on the world the importance of our undertaking?" Nowhere has a formula been suggested that would seem to guarantee conversion, by the skeptic, to the cause. Galvanizing rhetorical calls to action are usually honored as such after the fact, as in the late recognition of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Bush is not a poet, but it isn't safely assumed that, if he were, the language would be sufficient to inspirit the unconvinced in the Iraq cause.

"I hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing," Mr. Bush said to his final questioner at his press conference. "If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better. I feel strongly about what we're doing."

This was the point that Bush stressed at that conference: the strength of his own conviction. But even those who do not question the sincerity of his conviction are not necessarily moved by it. On the contrary, some of his critics are indignant and even inflamed by it. That much is human nature: If the leader stresses the purity of his own thought, dissenters are being asked to consider the impurity of theirs. How do such conflicts get settled? Mr. Bush has a very clear answer to that question: by democratic elections. He told the journalists that he was certain the American people would back him by returning him to office in November.

A day later, the contender, Senator Kerry, showed that it would not be easy to appease those Americans who are flat-out opposed to our mission in Iraq. Kerry is saying that Bush was disorganized in his preparation for the crisis, undiscriminating in his choice of targets, ill-prepared for the challenge that evolved, and--anything else one can think of. But the challenger is careful not to disparage Bush's motives for our mission in Iraq and emphatic that we cannot at this stage walk away from it. If the election were being held tomorrow, the voters would be registering simply whether they like the feel of Bush at the helm, or would prefer Kerry. Not whether we should pull out of Iraq.

Mr. Bush is entitled to wonder about whether he communicates best in the press-conference situation. This was his first prime-time press conference since the Iraq war began, and clearly he was uncomfortable. He handled himself competently, and there was no mistaking his resolution of purpose, if that was one of the questions the press wished to plumb.

There were, though, irritating moments. Sometimes Mr. Bush will simply not answer the question. This is hardly a unique problem: It was often impossible to decipher what President Eisenhower was trying to say. But Ike's trick was a fog of subordinate thoughts which mystified the listener, leaving him, if not informed, at least not resentful. By contrast, Bush is incisive in his phrasing, but that does not mean he is answering the question. When asked whether the Iraq experience put one in mind of Vietnam, he said that "the analogy is false," but 200 words later, he had not said why. The cow will jump over the moon before Bush volunteers an answer to how it is we were deceived about the presence of weapons of mass destruction; or, for that matter, how it is that we misreckoned the fractious behavior of the resistance.

The evolution of the presidential press conference is interesting. Up until Eisenhower, no transcripts were permitted: only paraphrases of what had been said. The thought was that presidential commentary shouldn't be exactly deciphered because to do so discouraged spontaneity on the one hand, and on the other encouraged partisans, clinging to discrete sentences, to attach to them such self-serving constructions as they sought out.

Mr. Bush's discomfort has resulted, simply, in an infrequency of exposure. But he more than once told the assembly that he looks forward to campaigning. And that means a full season of questions and answers--including debates. That will be a very open season.