Its an interesting paradox. If your party regularly paints the govmint as inept & incompetent, that the government baby needs to be drown in the bathwater, to borrow a phrase... and you then take control of all branches of the govmint for several years and proceed to govern ineptly and incompetently, is that then considered a success or proof of ones thesis?


>I think in this case they set out to prove just how bad govt is at doing these things. I don't think Iraq is a typical case. There was no effort whatsoever to place proper controls in place for handling the doling of funds. As well as putting people in place who no experience in anything to do with rebuilding. Although they did have experience as a Republican party member.
>
>Regan made the statement about how bad big govt is. And this admin has set out to prove that point at every step of the way.
>
>>>>The waste and fraud that has been seen in the reconstruction effort is a pretty good example of big government being inefficient in delivering a lot of services.
>>>
>>>Nope, it's the private businesses to which the government work was outsourced.
>>
>>But that's the point - big government decides how to dole out public money and does it badly. ( Iraq reconstruction being another good example )