>"President Bush, going into tomorrow night's debate over domestic issues with the Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), will be defending the smallest domestic agenda a first-term president has had in at least 44 years."
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25311-2004Oct11.html

That's the conclusion of a new Brookings Institution study by Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. Light, comparing Bush with his eight most recent predecessors going back to John F. Kennedy, finds that the incumbent ranks last in the number of "major legislative proposals" on his agenda.

That hardly translates into "no domestic policy".

>I thought that was 4 claims.
>- biggest since Korea (fact)

I'll buy that

>- went to war without traditional allies (fact) Canada, France, Germany

Bogus. Our "traditional" ally is England, who has supported us in several conflicts. Outside of NATO, Germany has not. France is lukewarm at best. But when has having allies been a requirement to looking out for one's own interests?

>- went to war based on lies or ineptness. Time will prove this conclusively, but interviews with top CIA people have shown that the Pentagon misused CIA intelligence.

Quotes, please. If all you can find is Larry Johnson, you need to try harder. While I won't argue that the intelligence was faulty, it was Saddam's intent all along that the international audience believe he had WMD. We called his bluff, and he didn't even have a pair of aces.

>- Iraq war is going poorly. Looking at number of US battle deaths by year, this appears to be a fact. See http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

The casualty rate is hardly an indication of whether the war is going poorly or not. Is it going poorly because you only listen to the bad news that comes out of there? Is it going poorly because American units are being chased out of there? You'll have to do better than stand on your own opinion.