JOHN LEO'S BLOG

The appointment of an interior minister in Iraq wasn't welcome news. It "left us apprehensive," the newspaper opined, because "we've seen this scene before, and it has usually ended badly." The Times complained about "too many photo-ops aimed at giving Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans a short-term lift in domestic opinion polls at election time." The editorial found room to complain that Bush had declared from the deck of an aircraft carrier in 2003 that America's mission had been accomplished. (He didn't, by the way. "Mission Accomplished" was a banner on the ship.)

Even the Boston Globe was more positive, though the paper is owned by the Times and therefore normally just as disdainful of anything Bush does. It saw a reasonable flash of optimism in three recent events: the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the capture of useful enemy documents, and the long-delayed filling of important cabinet posts in Iraq. "America cannot let Iraq become a safe haven for al Qaeda," the Globe said, but Iraqis must soon take the lead in the war against insurgents.

The Washington Post, whose editorials are now generally models of fairness and balance, said Bush "delivered an important demonstration of American support" and provided assurance to "Iraqis who had feared the United States would precipitously withdraw." The Post criticized Sen. John Kerry for urging that U.S. troops be pulled from Iraq by the end of this year and praised Bush for "correctly and courageously using what remains of his personal political capital to give Iraqi democracy a chance."