[JasonC]

(1) Rumsfeld vetoed "go large", which would have won the war in 2 years instead of stalling and accomplishing nothing for the first 3 years.

(2) Bush had a chance to pick any issue he liked to fight his second term on, and he picked one that split his own party wide open, out of pure political arrogance.

(3) Paulson had a chance to prevent the market slaughter before us by preventing a disorderly bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and he insisted on doing nothing instead, to cater to doctrinaire libertarian puritans and duck populust flack over bailouts for bankers, for one week.

Those three policy mistakes, all reflecting collosal arrogance, ideological stridency, contempt for pragmatism and long experience, and a smugness about the consequences of world-historical proportions. All were entirely unforced own goals. All were violently opposed at the time by wiser men and rammed through anyway.

Now don't say we didn't tell you so.

[Bishop_Malachi]

3) Paulson had a chance to prevent the market slaughter before us by preventing a disorderly bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and he insisted on doing nothing instead, to cater to doctrinaire libertarian puritans and duck populust flack over bailouts for bankers, for one week.

An honest question: What means could Paulson have used to prevent this "disorderly bankruptcy" of Lehman Bros. and what would that have ultimately accomplished?