At first glance it would appear that the brilliant work by the British agents in cooperation with Pakistani authorities would bode well for the Republicans in the mid-term elections.
The timing could not have been more impeccable. Connecticut Democrats said no to three-term incumbent Joe Lieberman, and yes to newcomer Ned Lamont. In Republican speak, it was proof positive that Democrats were weak on terror.
In a rare press conference, Vice President Dick Cheney, crying crocodile tears for Lieberman, opined:
"The thing that's partly disturbing about it (Lieberman defeat) is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
Is this not right out of the Karl Rove playbook? Rove stated earlier this year to the GOP faithful that the path to victory in November would be to make the argument that "we can protect you better than they can."
No doubt that Republicans everywhere were buoyed by the latest Newsweek poll indicating that 55 percent approve of the president's handling of terror. But in the same Newsweek poll only 38 percent approve of the president's overall job performance.
It is quite possible that thwarting the latest terrorist attack in London may have brought the unintended consequences of demonstrating just how unnecessary was the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In addition to Newsweek, the most recent CBS and Harris polls have the war in Iraq as the number one issue--more important than terrorism and the economy.
This protracted quagmire is almost as long WWII with very little positive to show for the costly efforts. By most expert accounts, the current situation in Baghdad is, at best, terrible.
It is not enough to point to the roads that have been paved or schools constructed as justification for this failed effort. Not even the toppling of Saddam is worth taxpayer dollars and the collective number of American and Iraqi lives.
At one of the most critical junctures in American history we went with a theory--the belief that through shock and awe would sprout the seeds of democracy whose roots would spread throughout the Middle East.
It also placed a heavy burden on our own democratic traditions. The executive branch of government either by cherry picking, overt misleading, or incompetence sold the war to the American people. Meanwhile, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the legislative branch--thought it better to look patriotic than to be so--did little to curtail this disaster in the making.
If the Republican majority in Congress wants to make the case for reelection that they can keep us safer than Democrats, they do so at their own peril because the facts suggest something very different.
How can supporters of this administration make the argument that they are best qualified to lead when they have recklessly spent roughly $300 billion for a mistake in Iraq while cutting $6 million out of the budget to stop explosives on planes?
Ironically, British agents managed to prevent a terrorist attack without Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay-like torture. Nor did they seek to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. It was through hard work and cooperation that paid dividends.
As much as Republican would like to tout that the failed terrorist attack somehow proves them right--it does just opposite. It shows just how unnecessary Iraq was toward combating terror.
A case could be made that we are safer since 9/11, but such a case does not include Iraq. One might further argue that the potential terrorist attack in London proves the need for the Orwellian warrant-less wiretapping, but again this has nothing do with Iraq.
But we are stuck in Iraq and no one, Democrat or Republican, knows how to get out unscathed. But one thing that the American people do know--they know who caused it. And this time around they might remember come November.