Don’t miss the latest column from Mark Steyn:

Some of his allies – the Prime Minister of Britain – have overcome their squeamishness to regime change. Some of his opponents – the Prime Minister of Canada – were still objecting to regime change even after the regime had changed. But it was Bush’s position that counted: one of his strengths is that he won’t sacrifice the objective to the process. By contrast, it wasn’t always apparent that his predecessor had objectives: what exactly was the desired end when Mr Clinton bombed that aspirin factory in the Sudan? In foreign policy, Clinton had tactics, not strategy: his inability to reach what the special prosecutor Ken Starr called “completion” extended far beyond Monica’s gullet. On his tax cuts, on missile defence, on Saddam, Bush is completion- focused.

Plenty more where that came from.