Democrats are in a great position to evicerate Bush on terror. Why haven't we?
Bush's 9/11 ads create the impression that he is helping to make Americans safer from terrorism. The problem is, his fight against terrorism has been an awful mess. He gave a great speech after 9/11, but everything he's done after that has been a huge mistake, either in strategy or in execution. Let's go over the list:
Afghanistan: We kicked out the Taliban and then didn't follow up. Now Afghanistan is a mess and the Taliban are on their way back. The people who brought us there in the first place, Al Qaeda, are still on the loose because we didn't commit enough resources to get the job done.
Iraq: a needless war that diverted resources away from the chase for bin Laden and created an entirely new reason for people to hate our guts. And by the way, they're worse off now than they were a year ago. Saddam is gone, but the ground is fertile for someone far worse to rise in his place. In the war on terror, this is ten steps back.
Homeland Security: I can give him points for increasing our intelligence efforts, but our counterterrorism efforts are piss poor at best, with too many efforts that fail poorly (e.g. if someone gets through screening you have to empty the airport) and too many leaks about how we're tracking these folks down. The Department of Homeland Security itself is a big bloated mess that's going to cost tens of billions of dollars before they can even share information correctly.
Our reputation: Oh boy, where do I begin here? Let's start with pissing away the sympathy of the whole world, including our worst enemies, and winding up with even our closest allies (France, UK, Canada) thinking we're power-mad lunatics.
George Bush hasn't fought terror. He's given us a safety blanket and a pacifier and let us think that this is progress.
Now, I ask you: what is it going to take for Kerry, Pelosi, and Daschle to go on the offensive against Bush on this issue?