9/11 should have been dealt with as a crime. The US had a lot of support afterwards and its been used up rather recklessly. The war on terror has been about as successful as the war on drugs.



>But my point is exactly that whatever the "public opinion" that does not settle the issue of whether or not a particular policy - either in proposition or hindsight - is or was the right thing to do. On 9/9/01 public opinion would have been against most of the things that might have prevented 9/11. On 9/12 "Should we nuke Mecca?" would probably have won.
>
>Walter and many Americans often site our popularity or standing in European opinion poles as the mark of our success or failure, as if that were the goal of American policy. Granted it is an indicator of success in certain areas, but I would shudder to think policy makers considered it the determining factor in setting national security policy.
>
>It is often very difficult to evaluate policies - either before or after the fact - because of incomplete information. Getting the view of the "man on the street" hardly adds to the wisdom.
>
>
>>>
>>>Now with all the technology (including headology, the science of social engineering), imagine if Bushies organized a referendum about anything. Would you bet a beer that they'd lose?
>>
>>I wouldn't be willing to bet anything. They'd get a part of the population agreeing, but the majority would be dead against anything they proposed.