"I studied macro-economics as part of my professional qualifications and I do know a little bit about what constitutes an economy."
Oh ok, so it's only on macro-economics that you demand concrete steps and outlines then? 
"Yes, I did criticise the Bush Jnr administration. For the little jaunt he took into Iraq."
So you're angry that Iraqis are free from a tyrant and can choose their own destiny now? What about Afghanistan, was that also a little jaunt? 
"That criticism was based on my personal assessment of the evidence presented, was clearly explained, and (to my great surprise) has since proved to be largely correct ( the enquiry into British involvement in Iraq has reached the same conclusion, the basis for my assertion)."
So i take it you didn't have a outline of concrete actions to be taken instead to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? Also was that all you criticized about the Bush administration, nothing else accompanied by an outline of concrete actions to be taken? 
And are you saying you never criticized the actions of any other government, just Bush Jnr and his 'little jaunt' into Iraq? 
"I presume that Obama is, in your book wrong for wanting to bring "your boys" home?"
Yes, if be brought them home in defeat. Oh and i'm making the assumption that you mean soldiers and not small children.
And while you're on the subject of Obama and "the boys", what's your opinion on him authorizing the bombing of all those suspected "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think he is wrong for not giving them fair trials? 
This is going to be fun... :)
 Outline only. General principles. Like for example the idea of "a deposit guarantee scheme" as implemented by Australia, Britain, and NZ. Or perhaps even "do nothing and see what happens".
 Afghanistan was supported by the international community. The evidence was relatively conclusive; that was where alQaeda was operating from.
Saddam was not the most pressing problem of the times. It was made so by a tin-pot President who persuaded two of his mates to go on a rumble.
The money spent on the war in Iraq alone would have made every man woman and child in Iraq rich beyond their wildest dreams. Why not just hand out the cash, with the US's favourite candidate printed on the bags? It makes as much sense.
Iraq was based upon failed, even falsified, evidence. There was no international mandate.
Saddam needed to be dealt with, no question; but then so did (still does) Mugabe and we do not see the US charging in to "bring democracy" there, do we?
Saddam needed to be dealth with, but then so did (still does) the military junta in Burma. We don't see the US charging over the hill to rescue the innocent there either, do we?
Saddam needed to be dealt with on the basis of sound evidence, not the paddock platters that were dealt out. Look to the evidence given to the British Commission of Enquiry to see what they were thinking at the time.
 See . And yes, that was about my only criticism of the Bush administration.
 I criticise the NZ government whenever I think they got something as wrong as the US in Iraq. I have criticised, and praised, the British government as I see the occasion warrants. I have poked the bone at the Autralian government because baiting Aussies in good sport, particularly when they start acting like galahs.
It matters not if you think the US has "won" in Iraq or not. The probability of "democracy" surviving there in any recognisable form for more than 5 years after is less than 50/50; about the same time as it took Saddam to change things from "democracy" to dictatorship.