Third-year slump

I’m not sure if Hindrocket over at Power Line has had a chance to read this Fred Barnes article at OpinionJournal, but maybe it would make him feel a little bit better. The impression I get so far is that the Democrats are doing all the talking, and that’s accounting for the slipping numbers. As Barnes points out, that’s natural; it’s Presidential election season, with the first round of the primaries coming up in three or four months. When Dubya has a chance to focus on the election, the numbers will move back, probably significantly, unless something goes disastrously wrong in the war.

David Kay redux

A guest column by Andrew Apostalou puts it all into perspective. (Thanks to Roger Simon.)
From what I see, we may be the first nation to have such poisonous debate over a war we won, with minimal losses on both sides, and that resulted in liberating over 20 million people (not to mention removing a dangerous regional threat). Does anyone else find this as silly as I do? We knew he was a brutal dictator; we know now that he was actively avoiding compliance with UN resolutions and the terms of the truce that left him in power. At the same time, a significant amount of our overseas military was pinned down enforcing the terms of that truce, and our presence in Saudi Arabia was not helping matters. Eventually we would have to have left, with Saddam in power, which would only embolden other dictators and bin Laden wanna-bes.
The only option we had was to enforce the terms of the truce, regardless of what the UN Security Council says. In effect, we saved the UN from becoming the League of Nations, which also passed a lot of resolutions against dictators with absolutely no intention of enforcing them. In fact, the League’s embarrassing response to Italy over the Ethiopian conquest convinced Hitler that the Western democracies would never actively fight against him. Is that what we want to do again?