[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I almost hope that Hillary does get the Democratic nomination. She will lose and leave the mess for a Republican to clean up.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt the problem of international terrorism will be fixed in the next administration. Or the next 2 administrations.
I mean, look at social security and medicare. How long have those systems needed fixing? And those are problems occurring in this country and Congress has direct legislative control over them. The problem of international terrorism is largely originating in other countries over which we can only exert influence. So I think we’re going to be having these arguments for a long, long time.
As for the OP:
I think there are a couple of main factors.
First, not everyone agrees that the situation in Iraq is so terribly screwed up. I think every reasonable person agrees there have been mistakes, and most people seem to think that Iraq is no picnic, but a) some people seem to expect that mistakes will be made in war; b) not everyone blames the difficulties in Iraq on the Bush admin’s policies; and c) many people seem to think that we’re at least making positive progress.
Second, as John Mace said, we haven’t had any major attacks on US soil since 9/11. I agree that this is hardly definitive proof that we’ve got the right policies in place. Especially since we’ve probably had some minor terrorist attacks in this country.
Third, there have been numerous busts of terrorist plans for attacks in the US. One example is the plot to blow up the tallest building in LA in 2002. This at least creates the appearance that one of the reasons we haven’t had any terrorist attacks since 9/11 is because we’ve ethem from occurring, presumably in part because of the current policies. See also Brian Ross’s interview in which he said that Bush’s policies on coercive interrogations led to information that helped foil the LA bomb plot.
Fourth, I think most people see the rebuilding in Iraq as something largely separate from the war on terror at home. Bush can screw up royally in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean the guy is going to screw up everything. Even if people agree that he should have sent more troops into Iraq, kept the Iraqi army intact, etc., that doesn’t mean the Patriot Act is a bad idea. Even though they both ostensibly fall under the rubric of “helpful in the war on terror,” one can be a complete failure and the other still be successful.
Obviously, none of these are definitive proof that Bush’s policies are effective. But I think the effectiveness of those policies is beyond definitive proof. How can we prove that the policies are effective, except by looking at whether there have been terrorist busts and/or attacks? So it does seem to be evidence in support of that position.
