This is a classic demonstration of a liberal being glad she was right, rather than glad she won.
I’m not saying it was possible to stop the war in Iraq. Maybe it wasn’t. (Though I doubt that.) The point is, most liberals were more focused on being in the “reality-based community” instead of getting their hands dirty with the kinds of dishonorable tasks that it takes to win.
I guess by some standards we can say that we survived this administration. But at what point does a disaster become a disaster worth preventing at any cost? My sense of human behavior, especially of political humans, is that preventing disasters is almost without reward. Leading people to rebuild is what gets you canonized. Therefore, there’s little motivation for people to lay everything on the line to prevent something like the Iraq war.
But there will come a time when something could have been prevented and those who didn’t act against will be just as demonized as those who acted to bring about the disaster. Global warming is one thing that might fit the bill.
As long as the bad guys only care about winning, and the good guys only care about being right and wagging fingers after the fact, we will only see the good guys come to power long enough to repair the damage (Carter, just long enough to get the taste of Nixon out of our mouths; Clinton, just long enough to fix the economy) and never long enough to do anything to actually move the ball (health care, etc.).