I am now, for the first time in my life, a proponent of less government power over our lives- a born-again libertarian. I never realized how bad it could get to have expanded executive powers with the wrong person in office. Since 9/11 Congress has been totally gutless- so to me, our democracy feels broken.

Kim,
While I am encouraged at your change of heart about big govt-LOL-I feel the need to point out that big govt (my definition: lots of social spending, and favoring public sector solutions over private sector) is a separate issue from ‘powerful govt’ or ‘intrusive govt’. It seems to me like the last two are the ones you are concerned with (and I see some reason for that, but I’m probably not as worried as you are). I actually see problems in all three areas: fiscal conservatism (which includes spending restraint and a desire for “small govt”) has gone by the wayside, so there’s the “big govt” concern. There’s too much power in Washington, too much power in the Executive branch (to some degree, judicial as well), and too much corporate influence and corruption, so there’s the “powerful govt” concern. There’s too much govt intrusion into personal civil liberties and a desire on the part of some to increase legislation on social issues, so there’s the “intrusiveness” issue. These are all valid concerns, but you and I probably differ on the relative weight of the concerns.

CS-I’m not saying there was no threat in Iraq, but I’m having a hard time believing that the intelligence community was that badly fooled. Most books I have read placed it about 6th, and some in the administration were stunned that that was the next target. I tend to believe Tony Zinni, since he’s not still involved, and has no visible ax to grind. He voted for Bush twice, so he’s no basher.

But what about the evidence that Clinton saw Saddam as a serious problem? (sorry to have to bring him up but I hope you’ll see that it is relevant, not that I’m trying to bash him!) The way I see it, part of the reason that the intelligence community was fooled was because they had been fooled the other way prior to the first Gulf War. I don’t think we realized how advanced Saddam’s WMD program was until after we went in, so that afterward, there was an assumption that ANY evidence of him reconstituting the programs had to be taken very seriously. Ironically, I think the intelligence community was so afraid of being burned twice that they stepped right into the fire by making the opposite mistake of overreading the evidence of WMDs.

And on the neocons, and Bush’s decision to go with their philosophy of democratization- that’s sort of a separate issue from the actual degree that Iraq was an imminent threat. The way I saw the situation at the time, Iraq was a problem and a possible threat-if not imminent, then a developing one. I didn’t think we could continue to keep Saddam in check through sanctions, the UN wasn’t willing to do anything about him, and also, he was no longer the useful figure that he once was for keeping Iran’s power checked. I felt that it made sense to develop a new strategy to prevent Iran from dominating the region, and the old one wasn’t working any longer (not to mention that it sacrificed the well being of Iraqis in order to create this balance of power). I see this ALL as part of a larger picture- what Bush I talked about as a “new world order” to replace the Cold War “sphere of influence” world map. There’s no doubt that it was effective for the US to prop up dictators in the past, but I was hopeful that we would disengage from that practice.

So in that sense, it made sense to me that IF a modern, democratic nation could take the place of Saddam’s Baathist Iraq, several problems would be solved. Of course, I overestimated the degree to which the obvious obstacles could be handled; I assumed that the planning wasn’t based on rosy optimism and now I see that that’s all it was. I knew very well the history and that forming a unified democracy there wouldn’t be easy- what baffles me is why the administration seems to have thought it would be. I didn’t think this is the way they were looking at it. I thought they must have had intel on factions that could be united and brought together to bring order and stability after Saddam was taken out.

I realize that you were never a believer in these goals, but at least I hope you can understand why some of us were.

Also, I keep going back to the PNAC and the letter many currently in the administration signed and sent to Clinton in 1998 urging regime change in Iraq. That and those who disagreed with Bush I’s decision not to go to Baghdad, but ended up having positions of power (like Wolfowitz) under Bush II. They had to come up with the mushroom cloud imagery and tie Saddam to al queda to sell it to the country.

Of course Congress acted like a flock of sheep, not like a separate branch of government. They’ve been cowed the entire 6 years of Bush’s presidency. Very disappointing to see how scared they are of taking any meaningful steps to end this.

Yes the Republicans fear Clinton and heres why. Heck I even voted for Clinton. Not sure why I would bash him but I guess anymore if you even mention his name your a Clinton Basher.

However I will differ from Gray. I always do. Serious economists who are not on the liberal payroll do agree that this Economy is doing Very well given:

“The principal reason is that the labor force has grown much more slowly during the president’s term than under the presidencies of Clinton and Reagan and that has nothing to do with anything but demographics,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com.

Baby boomers — a huge block of workers — poured into the work force in the 1980s and were rising through the ranks in the 1990s. That’s not the case now as boomers face retirement, and there are fewer young people to take their places.

While Im not advocating nirvana. GWB gets credit for nothing While Bill Clinton oversaw the Dotcom explosion and stood around taking the credit while essentially doing nothing to earn the accolades other then to follow the advice of his Karl Rove……Its the economy stupid.

This eats away at Republicans not because it happened. That was a good thing for America other then Wall street and half the companies in America about went belly up over the dotcom craze under Clinton. Yet the bubble burst and Bush was left holding the bag While Clinton played his Sax and found an office in Harlem and praised his teflon manufacturer.

Hope this makes some sense, and would be glad to pick up the discussion at a later time if you’re interested.

I’m not following you, CS. I don’t see how one could debate the Iraq War without focusing on Bush. To me, that would be like debating the Vietnam War without focusing on Lyndon Johnson, or the Korean War without focusing on Harry Truman. In terms of war, the buck stops at the President’s desk…or at least it used to.

I am now, for the first time in my life, a proponent of less government power over our lives- a born-again libertarian. I never realized how bad it could get to have expanded executive powers with the wrong person in office. Since 9/11 Congress has been totally gutless- so to me, our democracy feels broken.

And since use of force has turned out so badly for us and at such a high cost, I am an even bigger proponent of diplomacy. It may not work but at least it should be tried before something much more extreme. So much coming out of the WH has turned out to be false, that I even wonder if our relationship with rogue states has been exagerated to make a case for war. I’m wondering it a lot, now that we are taking a similar path towards war with Iran. Its a very dangerous game we are playing and I don’t trust any of the players to handle the danger.

Kim,
What I’m saying is that I think Bill Clinton and Bush represent two extremes in leadership style. Clinton had such a need for popularity and consensus that he dithered at times, IMO. Bush has such a need for authority that he doesn’t heed advice from those with contrary opinions. Neither is good in the extreme, but my personal preference is for an executive to BE an executive (yes, a decider) but to do so only after being fully informed and after honestly considering the potential consequences of decisions.

Examples of policy where I agreed with intent of GWB but feel he completely messed up the implementation:
1. That terrorism should no longer be handled as a law enforcement issue.
2. That the US is justified in acting alone when our allies have conflicting goals that don’t allow them to side with us. However, when this is the case, it’s necessary to consider whether or not we have the capacity to acheive our goals without help.
3. That some increased latitude ought to be given to executive authority because of war, but here the problem is that Bush has gone too far, and hasn’t allowed for proper oversight.
4. That it is appropriate to take a hard line with rogue regimes and to refuse to negotiate from a position of weakness, but the problem with Bush’s implementation in this regard is his blustering rhetoric. It’s possible to be firm and resolute without being bellicose.
5. That the post cold war era does demand a much different foreign policy strategy, including promotion of democratization and modernization of developing countries. The problem here is that the cart was put before the horse (expecting to be able to create a democracy before modernization) and that it was attempted through force instead of winning hearts and minds.

These are all examples that frustrate the daylights out of me because I think people now reject the underlying fundamentals due to Bush’s failure to implement policy correctly. I fear the pendulum swing toward a weak chief executive (though I admit: Hillary is likely to be a stronger one than Bill was) and toward a more isolationist and internationalist foreign policy.

Sry, correction: Of course his most important reform (and a dificult one) was welfare. Thx, Kim, for pointing this out.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with your response either. My desire to not have a repeat of Bill Clinton’s presidency is due to some disagreements I have with his policies and style of leadership, not with a desire to make sure the GOP doesn’t look bad by comparison.

Basically did nothing??? What about welfare reform, what about balancing the budget? What about promoting global free trade? What about Bosnia, where we actually stopped ethnic cleansing? I get why the GOP doesn’t want another Clinton. Their own guy would compare so poorly with the Clintons, with his foreign policy disasters (only Cheney is still labelling them enormous successes, lol) the destruction of a major US city under his watch, and approval numbers that are less than half what Bill’s were when he left office. Even impeaching him didn’t dim his popularity with Americans.

And CS said no one was bashing Bill Clinton anymore. If you conservatives don’t want Bush-bashing, stop blaming Clinton.

Hehehe!
Clinton reformed social security, among other programs.
You won’t find a serious economist who can and/or will prove that Bush’s economy is better.
And NAFTA has nothing to do with India and China. Besides, you want to regulate the business’ right to produce wherever it wants? D’oh.
Much smoke, but no fire. As usual.