Fred Barnes, executive editor

THE BIGGEST NEWS in the 2004 presidential race is the spectacular takeoff of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat and vociferous foe of the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, in an Iraq-related matter, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has set eight goals for winning the war. Boiled down, they consist of removing Saddam Hussein from power, destroying his weapons of mass destruction, either running terrorists out of Iraq or eliminating them, and helping Iraqis build a new, democratic country with its borders and oil fields intact.

Maybe it's premature, but let's put these two things together--presidential politics and war aims--and see what they may mean for the 2004 contest. Sure, the election is 18 months away and by then the war may be a distant memory. Still, it's bound to have a political impact. If President Bush achieves the goals in a reasonable period of time--weeks or months, not years--he'll be in a strong position as he seeks reelection. Should Bush fail, he'll be politically weakened. All that's pretty obvious.

The overarching goal is ousting Saddam, the evildoer. Once he's deposed, the war is over, even if Iraqi irregulars are still carrying out nuisance attacks on American troops. A council of Iraqi citizens will be created to rule the country along with an American military chief and occupying troops. The Saddam era won't be forgotten, but the rush to install a new system of government will be the news.

It would be best if Saddam doesn't escape from Iraq. True, that wouldn't leave Bush in quite the same situation as he finds himself in the war on terrorism. He wouldn't be denied closure on Iraq, as he has been in the battle against al Qaeda terrorists with Osama bin Laden still at large. An out-of-power Saddam would be no threat. But most of the world would feel better if he's either caught and tried as a war criminal or killed.

The second goal is finding WMDs. This, after all, is a primary rationale for the war. No doubt Bush's opponents, including the French and antiwar Democrats, will jump all over the president if he conquers Iraq but discovers no WMDs. However, the prospects of finding them become far better once American forces have the chance to interview Iraqi scientists free of Saddam's control.

What will the French say if tons of anthrax and nerve gas agents and missiles with afflotoxin turn up? That United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix, who can barely find his shoes, would have uncovered them anyway? And what will Democratic critics of Bush say? That these WMDs in Saddam's hands weren't worth a war? I don't think so. Both the French and Bush's foes at home will be non-plussed and effectively denied an issue.

As for terrorists, their presence in Iraq may be difficult to prove conclusively. Terrorists might be able to slip out of the country ahead of American or British troops. On the other hand, credible evidence of the sanctuary given them in Iraq by Saddam could be supplied by captured Iraqi officials. And if al Qaeda members are apprehended, say, in Basra, the case is closed.