The more appropriate question with the much shorter answer is, what has worked??

 What in Bushes foriegn policy has worked?  How are we safer or how are our relations with other countries any better because of Bushes preferences to stonewalling or invasion, as opposed to diplomatic relations?

... not this argument again?

Seriously, what does that prove? If the number of attacks on American soil is inversely related to the success of your foreign policy, than Bill Clinton was actually BETTER then George Bush.

Basically, it's disingenuous to say, "Bush is doing alright cause we haven't been attacked again". It intentionally ignores everything else like the increased ability to hurt US troops abroad and the increased anti-American sentiment that has grown since OIF started.

That crazy left wing rag "Forbes" Doesn't assume the facts they back it up with evidence:
 Anti-American Sentiment Grows Worldwide

European and world views of the United States and President George Bush have dramatically worsened since 2000; the trend has intensified since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. There has been a decline in perceptions of the United States throughout the European Union, including in such traditional U.S. allies as the United Kingdom and Poland, and in Muslim and Latin American countries, according to annual polls undertaken by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Pew Research Center and the BBC World Service.

--Whereas most people in the world have a positive view of the E.U., U.S. influence is in noticeable decline, even among formerly staunch allies.

--Divergent views within the E.U. on U.S. policy have their roots in the 1980s East-West split in Europe on the respective threat from Soviet and U.S. military power.

--Contemporary anti-Americanism derives largely -- but not entirely -- from President George Bush's Iraq policy.

--It has waxed and waned before and is likely to subside again, in parallel with changes in the Washington administration and its foreign policy.

In a March 2007 survey of 28,000 people in 27 countries conducted for the BBC World Service by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, only Israel, Iran and North Korea were perceived as having a more negative influence than the United States on world affairs. During 2002-06, European views of the desirability of U.S. leadership in world affairs has declined from 64% to 37%, while its undesirability has risen from 31% to 57%. Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gives Bush an "F" for his "catastrophic leadership" in world affairs in his new book, Second Chance.

Particularly dramatic are E.U. and world perceptions of Bush. Confidence in the U.S. president has declined in all countries, mirroring similar declines in the United States itself.

Bush's standing is as low as 8-20% in the U.S. Muslim allies Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia. In the United Kingdom, a long-standing U.S. ally and supporter of the Iraqi invasion, only 30% have confidence in Bush. In Germany and France, this figure is 25% and 15% respectively. In Spain, it is as low as 7%, a consequence of the 2004 Madrid train bombing. Only in India does Bush's rating exceed 50%. In China, confidence in Bush (34%) is higher than in most West European E.U. members; Russia is similar (21%).

The most dramatic decline is in long-time U.S. ally and NATO member Turkey, where only 3% have confidence in Bush. However, Turkish views of the E.U. have also declined, in response to what is seen as the E.U. stalling over Turkey's membership. This mirrors declining support for NATO, now at 44%. Another U.S. ally, South Korea, also shows strong anti-Americanism, with 60% having negative views of the United States as a "colonial power." Anti-Americanism has become fashionable among young South Koreans.

Large majorities believe the United States is acting in its own interests while ignoring the interests of its allies. Such views reflect widespread opposition to U.S. unilateralism in world affairs. The Bush administration is perceived as over-reliant on hard power while ignoring soft power, whereas the E.U. is perceived as good at using soft power.

The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations' Task Force on Public Diplomacy has pointed to a perceived lack of U.S. empathy for other people's pain and hardship (for example, U.S. reluctance to intervene in Liberia's civil war), arrogance and self-indulgence. The E.U. is the world's largest bilateral aid donor, providing twice as much aid to poor countries as the United States.

Iraq has played a major role in mobilizing anti-Americanism. In one survey, there were majorities in 10 out of 14 countries supporting the view that Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place. Even in the United Kingdom, which has the second-largest military contingent in Iraq, 60% agree with that proposition.

Abuse of prisoners both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay has damaged the image of the United States. More European than U.S. citizens have heard about incidents there, shaping their views. Brzezinski observes that the most powerful image of the United States is no longer the Statue of Liberty, but Guantanamo.

Support for NATO has declined in parallel with the fall in the U.S. image. Many countries see NATO as a U.S.-dominated organization. Like the anti-nuclear campaigners of the 1980s, countries conflate NATO with U.S. military power.

Thanks for posting this. Interesting.

Nice posturing. You seem to believe that killing is the only way to deal with terrorists. David Petraeus disagrees, "You can't kill your way out of an insurgency." You can kill, co-opt, negotiate, pay-off. You can do ALLL if that is what you need to do. If you read the article, you will see that the only resistance the commanders run into is idiots like Bush in the Pentagon, who have no idea what is going on on the ground and have never been near a war. These idiots prefer macho posturing to effective strategy. Like you.

Polls are your measure? I see.



I see Britian and Australia in Iraq with us, I see France moving into Afghanistan, Canada is doing outstanding work. What staunch former allies?



Exactly why polls suck on making definitive statements. An error my debate opponent doesn't factor.



Exact %'s...but not entirely...sort of...kinda? Like? Please.



Waxed and waned like....all fickle poll taking endeavors? Your waxed and waned argument and likely to subside....what a f'n joke.



Has not one iota of credibility to be gradin nobody. And...how many countries in the world are there? 27 countries good enough for a solid poll? And.....how did Mexico vote? I read in some poll where Mexico don't favor us neither....and yet...pour in by the tens of millions.



World perceptions are often oblivious to reality. And I don't see a relative decline in US power and influence either. In fact..if you're an Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Saudi, Afghan, Paki, from Uzbekistan to Kurdistan, US power and influence is a daily reality. Got any arguments with actual substance?



You can give me the EU soft power victory list...when?



Perhaps pull our American Forces from their decades long presence in Germany and Europe proper...there protecting a rebuilding Europe from a just as viscious Stalinist regime...and give the savings to charity. Awfully easy to spout this nonsense now ain't it? The EU should be the largest f'n donor their incredibily nasty wars enveloped every continent they owe the planet some back pay! Tell you what...why not submit we stop taking care of the cemetaries on Euro soil that are full of dead Americans and we'll send the savings to "poor countries." Afterwards, stroll outside and hop into your recent model vehicle or enjoy typing on your oil based product computers and internet platforms. Cause, who do you think has been patrolling shipping lanes bringing you freedom? Our Aid packages to poor countries. Check that argument at the door, Chief, the United States is a huge reason you even have a f'n EU. Or a NATO. Or a UN.


Well, if he says so..it must be true.



Support for NATO we've declined. As we realize multi-nation endeavors that worked so well during the world wars where nations fought, probably don't work on Jihadists and the other threats of today. Hopefully, we see the same reality with the UN as Bush exposed their inept and corrupt programs and peeled back the skin to see what was really happening. Seriously, is there anyone credible today arguing the UN can solve a serious crisis?