SEVERAL politicians and commentators seem to believe that John Bruton was exaggerating this week when he spoke of the possibility of an IRA ceasefire.
Mr Bruton, they imply, was so pleased by the prospect of a second visit to the White House in six months that he came up with the message that Bill Clinton would most like to hear.
What does not appear to have struck them is that it may not have been Mr Bruton who informed Mr Clinton about the possibility of a ceasefire but the other way around.
The Taoiseach himself suggested as much. As Geraldine Kennedy reported in this newspaper on Wednesday, when he was asked if the US President had given him any reason to believe a ceasefire was contemplated, he replied: "Not in those terms. He didn't. There is a possibility of an IRA ceasefire."
But the American connection was not the only reason for Mr Bruton's optimism which, in any event, was more qualified, more cautiously conditional, than early reports on radio and television made it appear.
As he explained in a skillfully measured address to the joint session of Congress on Wednesday, the Taoiseach also hoped to build on the patience, persistence and practical sense of those on the middle ground engaged in the multi-party talks.
If Mr Clinton and his staff could persuade Sinn Fein (and in turn the IRA) of the wisdom of renewing the ceasefire, the republicans might convince themselves to join those already embarked on what will plainly be a long haul.
After all, they demanded all-party talks. And the end will not be a victory, for them or over them, but an accommodation which allows them to live in peace with their unionist neighbours.
BUT first, the American connection. The Clinton administration has invested time and energy in Northern Ireland, and the republican movement is indebted to the President.
The IRA's bombing of Canary Wharf and Manchester, as well as the discovery of weapons in Laois and London and the murder of the detective Jerry McCabe, have dismayed politicians of all shades in the United States.
Outside these islands, the President is the leading supporter of the peace efforts now concentrated on the multiparty talks being patiently guided by his friend and ally George Mitchell.
If there were to be another outbreak of bombing, shooting or widespread unrest on the streets of Northern Ireland, it would further damage the administration's poor record in foreign affairs.
It would be better for Mr Clinton, therefore, if the IRA were to announce a permanent end to its use of violence and Sinn Fein were to qualify for participation in the multiparty talks.
And it would be better for Sinn Fein if Mr Clinton - the president most deeply engaged in Irish affairs since Jimmy Carter and the one who took risks to let Gerry Adams have a visa - were reelected in November.
Mr Bruton, I'm sure, had more to go on than a hunch about Sinn Fein's intentions or the hope that constitutional politics was finally beginning to reassert itself after a summer drenched in anger and fear.
He and his advisers knew that contacts had been made.
Indeed, it would have been strange if the Clinton camp had not been in touch with Sinn Fein. Stranger still if Sinn Fein now failed to seize an opportunity presented by shared political interests.
As for the reassertion of constitutional politics, the British and Irish governments have been busy encouraging the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP in what they hope may become a series of bilateral meetings.
On the morning on which Dick Spring met Sir Patrick Mayhew in Dublin a seasoned negotiator watched the gaggle of media representatives that surrounded them and drily observed that the real business of the day was going on elsewhere.
A few hours later the SDLP and UUP sat down to talk at Aldergrove Airport. Not without doubts and doubters but with the firmly, if privately, expressed support of Dublin and London.
The governments believe that those who not only doubt but dismiss the value of the talks - the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein will come to recognise that progress can be made and agree to join them.
They have no illusions about the difficulties, thought the stark divisions shown in the Irish Times poll as the talks resumed may have taken many in the Republic by surprise.
Seven options were on offer: the most popular, power-sharing within the UK but without North-South links, was chosen by 22 per cent of the 1,100 people questioned.
First and second choices were added together. Still no option stood out: power sharing without North-South links was still the most popular choice, at 47 per cent.
But the most consistent finding was that what Catholics wanted Protestants did not, and vice versa.
Almost 39 per cent of Catholics favour a united Ireland; so does half of 1 per cent of Protestants. Nearly one-third of Protestants believe Northern Ireland should be more deeply integrated in the UK; the view is shared by 3 per cent of Catholics.
Close to two-thirds of the Protestants want the Republic's constitutional claim dropped now; almost half of the Catholics say it should never be dropped.
(And if we retained the aspiration to unity but abandoned the constitutional imperative and specifically forbade the use of force, would Protestants feel less threatened and Catholics feel less protected? It's a question worth exploring.)
But even the American interest in Northern affairs is divisive. Three times as many Catholics as Protestants think it's helpful; overall, opinion is almost evenly divided as to whether it's a help or a hindrance.
Ironically, one of the few issues on which there is cross-community agreement is the prospect of agreement in the multi-party talks. Almost two-thirds of both Protestants and Catholics think there is none.
These results - including the pessimism about political progress - are remarkably close to the results of a similar poll in 1993, taken as Albert Reynolds and John Major negotiated the Downing Street Declaration.
A few comparisons will show how little opinions have changed. Then, 12.5 per cent favoured a return to Stormont; now the figure is 12.2 per cent. A united Ireland was supported by 14.7 per cent in 1993; now support stands at 16.5 per cent.
The most popular option of 1996, power-sharing within the UK, is favoured by 22.1 per cent; it was also the most popular option in 1993, with 25.7 per cent.
An analyst at Coopers & Lybrand who conducted the latest survey noted that power sharing faded on the Catholic side as support for unity and joint sovereignty grew. But almost every movement on one side is balanced by a check on the other.
There have been few encouraging changes. But the changes that have occurred are worth noting, if only as evidence of movement which seems to have been provoked by the events at Drumcree.
The UUP, whose leader, David Trimble, figured prominently there, has lost ground - a shift of 11 per cent all told - to the Alliance Party and the fringe loyalists, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party.
Mr Trimble himself has lost the confidence of Catholics, among whom he is now less highly regarded than the Rev Ian Paisley. Gerry Adams is the most poorly regarded party leader in Northern Ireland.
JOHN HUME, meanwhile, has gained Protestant support; he and David Ervine of the PUP are the only leaders to have positive ratings in both communities.
If there is little enough to cheer, at least some popular illusions about the extent and depth of the problems are being dispelled.
Mr Bruton stressed the urgency of dealing with them. He said in Washington that the core problems that the governments have plainly identified must be tackled and overcome "by this generation of political leaders".
"I am absolutely determined", said he, that this will happen. His government is certainly the partnership best equipped for an even-handed approach on this side of the Border.