I’m still a supporter of the Iraqi war. I still believe that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. U.N Resolutions 687, 786 and 1441 clearly set forth the legal basis for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and no other country seemed willing to bear the responsibility. I firmly believe that had the United States backed off, Hussein would have seen it as a sign of weakness, and he would have quickly resurrected his weapons programs. In the long term, the United States would have suffered. In spite of the bleatings of the left and the failure of our mainstream media to report the facts objectively, there most definitely was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and that connection might well have blossomed into a full-scale collaboration had we not interceded. I know that there are many who disagree, but I don’t feel that there are many out there who have put any real research into the matter who would express a differing viewpoint. [Just read “The Connection, How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America” by Stephen F. Hayes. published by Harper Collins]
OK … here’s the “but.” Right now if some pollster asked me whether I approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his second term in office, my only honest answer would be in the negative. At this point there are other things that I would like to see George Bush address; other things I would like for him to explain.
He then lists a lot of other problems, unrelated to the war, and concludes: “Suffice it to say that George Bush needs to talk about much more than the global war on terror to float my boat.”
Yeah, if the Democrats stopped harping on the war, they’d do a lot better. Their continual war-baiting merely serves to remind a lot of people who are unhappy with Bush of why they don’t like the Democrats either. Bush’s best hope is that the Democrats won’t be smart enough to figure that out.
UPDATE: Further thoughts here. And here’s a response to claims that Democrats don’t have a coherent message.