I actually wouldn't call Bush a moderate. He was a conservative and possibly a member of the religious right. His interviews near the end seemed to suggest that he wasn't as diehard about religion though, so I'm not sure. He might be closer to a fiscal conservative in a way. (This is why I hate labels...nobody fits one perfectly). I'm not sure how it would be liberal to start a war (any war) because liberals usually encompass the ideals of populism and humanism.
This actually does raise a good point though. The terms are getting switched about again. This seems to happen about once every 50 years (Democrats of today are nothing like the original Democrats, for example). Liberal hasn't changed as much (bigger government, socialist leanings, etc). Conservative is starting to mean more of traditional mindset though with positions close to the Reagan government. Their positions on war usually change based on the war though, so I don't think you could ever just form a list.
That actually is a good point about the Republican party. They are leaning away from the good founding of the party and seem to have let the religious right get a hold them. A number of their policies have started to shift to their own form of nanny state. Not good on either side.
Baldwin isn't a moderate though. Moderate would mean straight down the middle. He probably focus on pragmatism and limit dogma associated to his positions.
Baldwin is a libertarian. Nothing wrong with that. It's a political position just as valid as any other. It just means that he is not a moderate.
As far as 9/11, there is a separate thread devoted to that and I'm trying to not derail any more threads here. I'll see you over there in a second.