Simon Henderson, the biographer of Saddam Hussein, writes a good article on the press’ coverage of Iraq, and why, probably, it will not end the way the liberals want it to end. Jim Hoagland think that Bush will get it right: he is impressed by Bush’s ability to make mid-course corrections, by his national security team, and by his doggedness. There is no comparison between Iraq and Johnson’s failed Vietnam policy. Charles Krauthammer explains the significance of the car bomb ("the nuclear weapon of guerrilla warfare") and asserts that if Bush stays in power we will win. Debra Saunders is not impressed by the Democrats’ notion that what it takes to win in Iraq is another three step proposal to build an international coalition. It is just a matter of will at this point. Jonah Goldberg beats up on the Democrats--using Senator Zell Miller’s (D) endorsement of Bush for 2004 as a stage--and says that "Miller’s decision is the logical consequence of a party that, at the national level, has become consumed by appetite - for power, for payback, for partisan gain - and nothing more." That’s why they see each setback in Iraq as a political opportunity; and they ought to be ashamed. And Diana West gently takes issue with Bush’s all-too-gentle-and-all-too-diplomatic views of Muslims. Please note that Iraq’s fuel crisis, which the press made such a big deal about not long ago, seems to be over. And Johann Hari, in the left-wing Independent (London), of all places, makes the argument that the real problem is not the attacks in Iraq, but that a small minority of people in the U.S. and Britain are trying to persuade us that the Iraqi don’t want the good guys in their country. Good article.