President Bush addressed the nation on Tuesday night, his 18-minute speech a prelude to a lengthy question-and-answer session with members of the national press corps.

The main questions came about his decision to send American men and women into Iraq. Did he have any regrets, any second thoughts; were there any mistakes he might have made? He grieves with the loss of each American, he told the nation, and off-hand, he could not let his viewers know of any mistaken judgment he and his administration might have made.

Judgments about the President's performance will be colored by whether viewers support or disagree with the Bush policies. Mr. Bush repeated some answers more than once, and pointedly failed to answer some questions. At times, some questions were responded to with a soliloquy, and responses to others were simple restatement of earlier remarks. How long will we be in Iraq, he was asked: "As long as necessary, and not one day more," was his answer.

There was no defining moment at this event; you either agree with the Bush foreign policy, and you supported his remarks, or you're troubled about the direction the hostilities have gone, and you worry what the future may hold for our troops, indeed for our country.

Mr. Bush disputed analysis that compares this Iraq war with the Vietnam war, rejecting any such comparison out of hand. Underlying his comments was his veiled suggestion that critics of his foreign policies are somehow disloyal Americans. Yet, in one remarkable moment, he admitted that American troops occupying Iraq may be unpopular among Iraqis, adding "I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

This press conference was televised across the nation, and it was a remarkable chance for citizens to hear our country's leader first-hand, unfettered by any media bias. Too often, we Americans opt out of participation, leaving public discourse up to broadcast "sound bites" and the spin delivered by talking head pundits and the political analysts of the press corps. It is likely that most Americans didn't watch on Tuesday night, either- and they missed an opportunity to hear Mr. Bush tell us what he believes.

And that's where the debate should begin. For right or wrong, this administration has gone into Iraq without the support of most of the rest of the world, and the consequence is that American citizens will pay much of the price - with the lives of men and women in the military, with our tax dollars, with our nation's prestige and reputation, and with our own personal safety.

At the end of the day, Mr. Bush believes his campaign against Hussein will yield more security for the American homeland. Yet with the alarming increase in terrorist attacks against our soldiers and civilians in that war-torn country, it is hard to accept that America is safer now than before this excursion. More worrisome is the concern that our resources are stretched thin across Iraq and Afghanistan, and if trouble breaks out in other parts of the world, what will be America's response?

It is not a popular thing to say in today's White House, but the Vietnam analogy seems appropriate. The shifting sands of daily Iraqi events seem more and more like a quagmire - albeit dry and quite hot, not soft and marshy - clearly an intractable situation. To believe that Mr. Bush can deliver America the safe way out takes a rather large leap of faith. And while all Americans will hope and pray that he can, the political question remains: Can someone do it better?

- Ed Forry