Terrorists have not been able to mount an offensive in the US, so the administration is publicizing the fact that its plan is on the right track and therefore we need to do more of the same. If terrorists had been able to mount a successful offensive, the administration would be claiming there would be more if not for their measures, that they were on the right track and therefore we still need to do more of the same. If the terrorists were striking us at will, the administration would be singing the same tune. If the Democrats had been in power the situation would probably be the same, but the complaints would be coming from the other side.

Actually, I think the administration has done a very good job of holding the terrorists at bay at home, and abroad (except for the Iraqle Debaqle) although I think most of the measures have been straightforward, pretty obvious and would have been carried out whoever was in power. Most of the security policies have been standard anti-terrorism tactics. I also suspect most of the "civil rights violations" and Patriot Act outrages would be being done by Democrats too, and Republicans would be doing the complaining if the shoe was on the other foot. Can you imagine how conservatives would be howling if they knew liberals were looking at their business files, corporate communications, and tax records? Racial profiling in airports is one thing, business books are holy and sacrosanct. Liberals, of course, would be rabidly defending their right to do this due to the "emergency".

If the bad guys get lucky tomorrow and succeed in blowing up some high value target, it will be regrettable, but I think it will not be the administration's fault. It's war, and you're bound to lose one every now and then no matter how good you are. Of course, the Monday Morning quarterbacks work for both sides, or haven't you noticed? TB is right, history did not begin in 2001, but neither can we blame everything on Clinton.

As for the Reuters report here quoted, not only do I think it's a pretty fair analysis, I think it is not critical of the Bush administration at all, on the contrary, it points out the US has been pretty successful in its aims so far, although it cautions us about what the future may bring. I can see where you might disagree with its assessment of Iraq, but I for one, came to that same conclusion on my own, long before the Reuters piece. And as for pointing out the costs to the US of the war, that is to be expected. All wars, after all, are essentially wars of attrition.