After my last posting, one of my readers asked an intriguing question: If President Bush was a better speaker, would there be more public support for the war in Iraq?

The President’s speech Monday night should provide an effective answer to that question. It was a great speech. I don’t know how the case for the war in Iraq could have been argued with more logic, eloquence or passion.

The United States – and, indeed, the entire democratic world – is threatened by an extremist element in Islam that is opposed to the very idea of basic human rights and modern liberal democracy. This is a threat that we cannot avoid merely by disengaging ourselves from the Middle East. The President was right when he said that if we withdraw from Iraq before it has a stable, democratic government, that oil-rich country will become a haven and a cashbox for Islamic terrorists.

So far, so good. But 45 minutes later, I was hungry. The speech scanned well, but didn’t stand up to closer examination.

The President said that 9/11 forced the U.S. to abandon a 60-year policy of favoring stability in the Middle East (even if that meant aligning ourselves with repressive regimes) and to adopt a policy of actively promoting freedom and democracy in the region. That’s true in Iraq, of course, but what are we doing to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia or other authoritarian countries in that part of the world?

The President commended the heroism and sacrifice of our armed forces. But he made no call for the folks at home to make sacrifices of their own – specifically, that we alter our driving habits so we consume less gas and reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We can’t tell the oil potentates to liberalize their regimes when they have us over a barrel.

Finally, the President said that one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is freedom. If it is, why aren’t we making better use of it? President Bush has presided over an administration that has condoned torture, detained terror suspects without trial, increased government surveillance indiscriminately over all Americans, made it more difficult for young people from foreign countries to come here to study -- and impugned the patriotism of those who have dared to question the wisdom and efficacy of these measures.

Here, some may insist that we have to expect certain curtailments of our freedom in wartime, even when they amount to putting the Bill of Rights on hold for the duration. After all, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War without constitutional authority, and President Franklin Roosevelt approved the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Some may even argue that President Bush was obliged to give an upbeat, flag-waving speech on Monday night – that it was his duty as President to sustain national morale in a time of war.

But what kind of a war is the war on terrorism?

Is this war wreaking as much havoc on American soil as did the Civil War? Is Osama bin Ladan as grave a threat to the U.S. as say, Hitler? Is al Qaeda a more powerful foe than was the Soviet Union?

If the answer to these questions is no, then I think we have to ask if this administration can afford the luxury of a little self-criticism – even in wartime. We have to ask if it can own up to its mistakes. We have to ask if the profound religious, ethnic and political complexities of the Middle East can or should be reduced to stark, black-and-white choices between freedom and civilization on the one hand and tyranny and terror on the other.

If President Bush won’t address these concerns, he may be sure that others will. Let’s see what kinds of speeches the Democrats make as the political season heats up.