>>Too many conservatives are blind (wilfully or otherwise) to how bad Bush is for the image of the United States.
>
>First off, I don't really give a flying fark about whether Bush is bad for the "image" of the US or not. What I care about is can he steer the nation in a manner that benefits the nation. Which, in my view, includes preventing any more major strikes against us or our interests abroad, by all means necessary.

Well Bush's GWOT has steered us into Iraq, so does that mean "preventing any more major strikes on us" from Saddam, cuz i dont remember that strike. The entrenched commingling of the two is remarkable, but i think its losing favor regardless of how hard Bush & Cheney try. George Will had an interesting column on tuesday where he pointed out that law enforcement is "central to combating terrorism". He even states that John Kerry's position was validated, which may cause some severe hyperventilating with some people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html

The Triumph of Unrealism

By George F. Will
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A13

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible -- that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy -- and domestic politics -- unrealism.

Foreign policy "realists" considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.


>
>Second, it's clear, even just from what I've read on the UT, that many non-US citizens already blame America for all the world's ills, and will continue to do so once Bush leaves office.

Totally agree, especially in how it applies to Bush taking us into Iraq. We'll be suffering from this long after he's out of office. Abu Grape, 2600+ soldiers killed, 18000 wounded, the civilian death toll, possibly Haditha, $300 billion spent (so far) with estimates of a trillion. Money that could have been spent on port security, border security, airport security, stabalizing afghanistan, as well as domestic programs not related to the GWOT.