Crow, it's the old saying. The President proposes and the Congress disposes.
Nothing gets done without money. The Prez can propose anything he likes but it's Congress that provides the wherewithal to get it done.
Again, look at the tax cut. It's way down from Bush's original proposal and it's going to go down again from where they're at now.
So I would say the Prez has some influence. He can sway some party members in Congress and some he can't. (Voinovich of Ohio in this case)
It's just not as lock step as you'd like to make it, IMO. Basically, even the Prez can't get Congress to agree on anything which is why it's pretty rare anything gets done... which, is probably a good thing.
But no Congress is the President's lapdog. They understand and defend their role in the checks and balances scheme of government.
So, if the next administration sets those goals and you become "suspicious"... what possible difference does it make? You'll just work against it like you're working against what you perceive to be bad PNAC ideas. You write your Reps, you write the Prez, you speak out to your neighbors to do the same.
And, in the end, no matter what the new Prez and his suspicious cronies propose, it will be CONGRESS, all 585 or whatever of them, that makes the decisions. Those "suspicious" guys will have to convince a majority of our Reps while "we the people" have the opportunity AND responsibility to make our desires known.
Goodwill lost? I'm not sure there was much to lose. Somebody has to do the right things, even if they're hard. Now I'm not saying Iraq was "right". I would have preferred a specific UN SC resolution. But if the WMD are found, I think overall it was the "right" thing to do.
And I think if you step back and look at the whole disarmament thing from '91 to '03, it's pretty clear there are/were d mn few countries that actually want to do the "right thing".
So, if it means keeping the good will of say the French..... well, again, we haven't lost much, IMO. Because there was never anything of substance to lose there. IMO.
Bottom line is that all of fears of PNAC proposals is based on the assumption that they will get those things done.
My view is that any rational review of how Congress works makesit highly unlikely that much will get done at all.
How long have they been talking about reforming the Income tax laws? Revising Medicare?
They talk a lot. They do little. I doubt PNAC would be able to change that if they had 10X as many moles in appointive office.
Sorry, I'm just not going to lose sleep over PNAC.
