Thomas Friedman, the NY Times columnist who thinks the preemptive attack on Iraq was great, is pleased that Iowa Democrats rejected, in his view, the argument that Iraq was a distraction from warring on terrorism.
I am not sure he's correct in reading the caucus vote that way, but he surely has put his finger on the key issue.
The war on Iraq was a distraction from the pursuit of al Qaeda or it was not. If you think it was not, you may well accept the idea that we are fighting a "war on terror." That could lead to the impression that George W. Bush is "strong."
The "war on terror" will succeed as well as has our "war on drugs," about 70 years old now.
Where 9/11 is the issue, President Bush clearly is weak, having failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, failed to kill Osama bin Laden and hobble alQaeda. In addition, I believe he has sown the seeds of bigger and better Islamic terrorism. Oh (and here I hope I am wrong), he's done so little to protect the homeland.
PS Friedman has never complained, incidentally, that the Administration adopted the Iraq policy secretly and sold it with lies.
Hey, since when should foreign policy be decided democratically, anyway?