Who knows if Bush always intended an aggressive, anticipatory strategic posture? Maybe he did; the point is that he ran for president as a cautious foreign-policy realist, and that's what people voted for.

And that's why "fixing the intelligence" was necessary.

You know, we have heard from a lot of "people in the room" by now. Just the same we all (even moderate and liberal) are slow to accept what happened - because it's painful - because it does not fit our self-image of America.

Anyway, Bush's main military arguments were that our readiness was in the crapper, and that we needed to avoid "nation building". Condoleeza Rice, the foreign policy advisor to the Bush campaign, was a protege of Brent Scowcroft and was generally associated with the 'realist' thinking Scowcroft still hews to, but the Bush administration gave up after 9/11.

(regarding PNAC, plans to invade Iraq from before 9/11): Who knows if Bush always intended an aggressive, anticipatory strategic posture? Maybe he did; the point is that he ran for president as a cautious foreign-policy realist, and that's what people voted for.

I also recall that Candidate Bush had a strange fascination with Iraq during the '00 campaign and it seemed clear to me that if he were elected, he was going to do something about Saddam Hussein. He probably had sanctions in mind rather than invasion, but Iraq was definitely on his radar even before the Supreme Court saw the first Bush V Gore brief.

I do not believe the Whitehouse actively engages, picks one as their strategy all that often (thank God!).

That's mostly because the international situation doesn't require such activity as it did in this case.

I don't recall the U.S. doing that in the Bush administration.

I'd argue that Afghanistan qualifies under that wording.

(The "Downing Street memos" have now been acknowledged correct by several players.)

If we are going to speak of ourselves though: I was cautious about Afghanistan for practical reasons (the British and Russian experiences with occupation), but gave it a clean moral call. I gave Iraq considered Iraq doubly flawed, on both practical and moral grounds. (By morality there I primarily mean our own domestic morality, the importance of truth in a democracy in time of possible war.)

I think my views held up very well.

There is certainly overlap between liberal internationalism and neoconservatism, but I suspect the main reason we are engaged in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan is the result of strategic choices that had many lineages.

Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 ... James, I'm going to choose that you are an honest guy, not trying to lie to me, but just suffering from a little dissonance.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq until very late in the game, ultimately falling for the WMD argument after North Korea went nuclear and I realized the dangers of waiting.

That said, there was a Realist argument to be made for taking out Saddam. Even Bill Clinton said "regime change" was American policy toward Iraq.

Going in and taking out unfriendly governments might not be "humble" in any ordinary sense of the word but putting in, say, Chalabi and then letting elections take their course would fit a superpower's definition.

I do not believe the Whitehouse actively engages, picks one as their strategy all that often (thank God!).

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

James, I'm going to choose that you are an honest guy, not trying to lie to me, but just suffering from a little dissonance.

I think it is rather easy to be a presidential and criticize the current presidency on a variety of issues and say how your ideas are better and will be implemented, then you get into office and the realities of being there change a lot.

I remember Bill Clinton had a very different policy idea towards China as a candidate than he did as president, and Obama has done a nice job of showing this as well.

Being the candidate means making decisions that have no consequences, being the guy in the oval office changes everything.