there was no evidence then and there's no evidence now that Iraq had anything to do with that attack

Exactly. There's absolutely no corrolation between the two. The "war" on Irag is a total off-shoot from the war on terror, and has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, IMO.

and obviously this is not something that's going to get him re-elected (unless of course it turns out to have been the best thing).

Um, you basically answered your own statement there, but I'll explain my point anyway. The Bush administration was relatively successful in Afganistan. They didn't eliminate all of Al Queda, but they did overthrow the Taliban, which I consider a victory. Like Bitt, I was suprised to be impressed with Bush's reaction to the situation. I also thought his father handled the beginning of the Gulf war well.

Once that settled down, what's in the news? Corporate responsibility. The public see that the big companies are screwing up. Then the economy goes in the toilet. What are you going to do if you're the administration? Anything you can! Sure, now it may look like this war won't get him re-elected, but you know, hindsight and all. And who knows, it could still work for him.

Sometimes I half joke that this is why the war is dragging out so very much. Nothing seems to be happening. I say that he'll try to extend it through the election