Sadly, No! cites a Wall Street Journal editorial that continues to insist that, even though we're scared out of our wits to let anyone fly a plane over our airspace, Howard Dean was wrong to say that the capture of Saddam didn't make us safer: "In the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture, Mr. Dean declared we were no safer because of it. This was bad enough as a gaffe, but he has stuck by the point, like Mike Dukakis on furloughs for felons, suggesting an obstinate disregard for the judgment of most Americans."

Infuriating -- but hey, this is the rabid Wall Street Journal editorial page, so it's hardly surprising. How about this, from an article on Iowa Democrats in last Friday's edition of (Even) The Liberal New York Times?

Yet the concerns voiced in interviews come during a rough month for Dr. Dean: what his own aides have described as political missteps — such as saying that the capture of Saddam Hussein had not made the United States safer — have coincided with a stretch of time when many voters in Iowa are making decisions.

(The article is coauthored by Adam Nagourney, for whom anything a Democrat does is, much as it clearly pains him to say so, a gaffe and a blueprint for disaster.)