>That hardly translates into "no domestic policy".

It certainly is an indication that there isn't much effort. With a friendly congress and senate you would like he would hammering out the bills.

>>I thought that was 4 claims.

>>- 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?

It certainly seems seems to help to have traditional allies at your side. Look at this list.

US successful while allied with traditional allies
- WWI
- WW2
- Korean War
- Gulf War I

US unsuccessful with no or missing traditional alllies
- Vietnam

The jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan but Afghanistan is going better than Iraq is.

>>- 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.

The question has been whether the Bush admin lied or had poor intel. Remember this document was produced by a republican senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq#The_report.27s_conclusions

The intel was accurate, so the conclusion has to been drawn that they lied.


>>- 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.

I disagree especially since the war is in an occupation and nation building stage.