In a single word - YES.

Taking a step back from the negative thinking that is pervasive these days, let's look at reality. On the national security/terrorism front, thing are far from dire. Iraq has been turned around to the point where the light at the end of the tunnel may indeed be real and not that of an oncoming train. Obama's "judgement" calling for withdrawal, if enacted when he first pronounced it, would have resulted in unbelievable chaos across the Middle East. Obama's other judgement in the earlier days of the Iraq war, when he said there was "not that much distance between his position and that of George Bush's" was they key reason why things went so badly there during '95 and '96. So, Obama's judgement has been remarkably wrong.

People like to cling to Obama's "judgement" concerning not going into Iraq in the first place. While this is perhaps debatable, one must be honest and admit that the choice was not one of maintaining the status quo and going to war. The status quo was rapidly changing into exactly the scenario that caused the vast majority of Congress to vote for war. All information obtained after the invasion from Saddam's "cabinet" and from Saddam himself pointed to the fact that a sanctions-lifted, WMD-armed Saddam was inevitable. Would that have been better than the scenario of today with a democratically run Iraq that is on the road to security and that is no threat to the region or the US? I doubt it.

On terrorism, how many people actually would have believed that 7 years after 9/11 that there would not have been another domestic attack? This didn't just happen by accident. Yet, Obama and the Dems have been fighting to rescind the measures that have been used to keep us safe. If he gets into the White House and actually follows through with what the left wants, things can get remarkably worse in a matter of seconds.