War, like most crises, magnifies the strengths and weaknesses of those engaged in it. The war with Iraq is exposing President George W. Bush’s failings as a communicator. Bush looked particularly bad at his joint press conference with British prime minister Tony Blair last week. As Blair parried and jousted with reporters (later submitting to an extensive interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos), Bush appeared stymied and at a loss for words. Asked about the lack of coalition partners, particularly among the Western allies, Bush replied, " We have plenty of wartime allies.... We can give you the list. " (France? Germany?)

The big problem for Bush is his inability to admit to anything that might be construed as negative. But by denying all reality — the war really hasn’t gone as planned — and merely repeating the positive war news over and over again, Bush saps his own credibility. Wartime leadership requires politicians to announce bad things to the citizenry and explain how they can be overcome. Both British prime minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt were masters at this.

After France fell in June 1940, Churchill leveled with the British public: he explained how much the defeat would hurt the UK’s war efforts. " The safety of Great Britain and the British Empire is powerfully, though not decisively, affected by what happens to the French fleet, " Churchill said in a speech to the House of Commons. He hoped to make a special deal that would secure the French fleet — then in North Africa, beyond German control — so that it could not be used against the British. When the French scuttled the deal and allowed the fleet to fall into German hands, which nobody expected, Churchill reacted with " grief and amazement. " Notice that he didn’t say, " Nothing has happened that was not according to the plan. " In his next speech, Churchill had to tell the public that his worst fears had been realized. The fleet was going to the Germans. To avert this, the British took the extraordinary step of seizing the ships by force, which confused many among the British (try explaining why you’re using military might against a former close ally). " A scuffle arose through a misunderstanding in the submarine Surcouf, in which one British leading seaman was killed and two British officers ... wounded, " Churchill reported.

And, when Churchill needed to buck up his people, he didn’t do so through rote slogans repeated ad nauseam; rather, he resorted to facts. " Our Navy is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the war, " he told the British people in an August 1940 speech, going on to describe each way the sea forces had gained strength. " Why do I say this? " he asked rhetorically. " The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel. "

While Roosevelt took a less polemical approach, he also brought credibility to a nation that needed inspiration in the early days of the war. Facing criticism in February 1942, Roosevelt knew he had to address the public. The US had been dealt a horrific blow at Pearl Harbor and was losing in the Philippines. Things looked grim. He took to the airwaves to deliver a fireside chat. But Roosevelt did not simply give the people good news (there wasn't much at the time). He gave them reason to think things might turn out better. He chose Washington’s birthday as the date for the address. " For eight years, General Washington and his Continental Army were faced continually with formidable odds and recurring defeats," said Roosevelt. "Supplies and equipment were lacking. In a sense, every winter was a Valley Forge. Washington’s conduct in those hard times provided the model for all Americans ever since — a model of moral stamina. " In that talk, the president referred to the great distances over which American forces had traveled to fight, and the difficulty of maintaining supply lines. To dramatize his comments, he asked Americans to look at a map and observe how far the various war theaters were from each other: China, Australia, Great Britain, Russia. Then he said something that could be very useful to Bush: " Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy destroy us. " He concluded by quoting Revolutionary War pamphleteer Tom Paine: " Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the sacrifice, the more glorious the triumph. "

Perhaps Americans could tolerate sacrifice more readily if Bush expressed greater confidence in our ability to handle all the news he has to give us — bad as well as good.