War Policy with Douglas Feith
Bush lied, people died; Bush came into office intent on launching a war in Iraq; There was no plan for postwar Iraq are just three charges in the prevailing narrative that has emerged since the beginning of the Iraq war. In refuting them, Doug Feith offers a firsthand insight into the decision-making process at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the war and during its first few years. He also discusses the wars greatest blunders failure to provide adequate security after Saddams fall and the decision to maintain an occupation government in Iraq for over a year as well as the tremendous shortcomings in pre-war intelligence. Finally, almost seven years after the September 11 attacks, he addresses whether the United States government is changing fast enough to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century security environment. HooverInstitution gVuGkVJ3T2Q News & Politics A CRASH COURSE IN DUBYANOMICS: President Bush's Economic Pol 1607 797 The decades of the 1980s and 1990s seem to offer two different fiscal models for promoting economic growth. The 1980s under President Reagan suggest that cutting taxes is more important than balancing the budget. The 1990s under President Clinton suggest the importance of balancing the budget with moderate tax increases. Yet the results in each decade were similar: sustained economic growth. President George W. Bush has clearly been following the Reagan model in his first term: enacting large tax cuts even as the federal budget approaches record deficits. But has the Bush team taken the correct lessons from our recent economic past? Do the Bush policies promote long-term growth or jeopardize it? HooverInstitution GYjEj3MfF0U News & Politics ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL: The Separation of Church and Stat 1607 747 The First Amendment of the Constitution declares in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What did this amendment mean to the founders who wrote it? Did they intend to establish an inviolate "wall of separation between church and state"? Or was their intent instead to merely preserve religious freedom and prevent the establishment of a national religion?