The American Spectator

: /p>

I am happy that Mr. Hogberg is optimistic about President Bush’s chances in 2004, but he failed to consider the one issue that has the potential for the same gut-level, re-election-killing reaction as torpedoed his dad’s re-election: Re-authorization of the “Brady Act.”

p>Rumblings from the White House suggest that President Bush wouldn’t be terribly concerned if the Brady Act were re-authorized. If he signs any such legislation, I’m afraid that he will lose enough folks who otherwise like him that he will be slinging hay in Texas full-time come 2005. br> — Paul Wescott br> Anchorage, AK /p> p> WMD FINDINGS br> Re: Wlady Pleszczynski’s WMD Backlash : /p>

There are many good points in this article. But toward the end, Pleszczynski says, “Seizing on phantom WMD must give the left a nice sense of gotcha! But it will leave it clueless to the real reasons for the Iraq war…. …the U.S. is no longer willing to put up with those who caused it grief beforehand and then regarded the attacks of September 11 as their special victory.” He’s right about September 11, but it is also true that WMDs were a part of the real reason for war and remain a good reason to have gone to war, even if we don’t find any here — though I think we will find out more about Iraqi WMDs than we have.