No. He specifically says that “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned”, primarily through it’s use to “justify an unrelated war”. And that is a very reasonable argument, which can be demonstrated with many examples:
State of the Union address, January 2003. If you watch the whole address you will see Bush made these comments while claiming that there were links between Hussein and al-Qaeda.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
President Bush, televised address on his administration’s policy on Iraq, September 2003.
And that’s just the first three I could find from a couple of minutes of googling. Claiming that 9/11 was cynically exploited by politicians to push their own agenda is a matter of public record. Quite why you feel that pointing this out is as contemptible as using funerals as a platform for gaining publicity is beyond me.
The record demonstrates that Bush was spoiling for this fight from the beginning - before 9/11/01. He was looking for excuses to take out Saddam, not for ways to avoid war.
When you’re thinking that way, it hardly matters whether you believe you’re doing the right thing. You’ve already made the fundamental lie to yourself; you’re already inside your own deceit. You believe you’re doing the right thing because you’re inside your own lie, and evidence isn’t going to change your mind.
So?
Well, of course it was sold as the right thing to do, rather than as a cynical plan. Just like you wait until after Labor Day to roll out your new product. That’s how you sell things.
Thank you Gary Kumquat and Budget Player Cadet for going to the trouble to restate some of the evidence. I don’t think it will do any good, but still it was the right thing to do.
I have some sympathy for Scylla, because as a left-liberal type I will not readily explore possible misdeeds by politicians that I agree with (Obama, approximately). But the case against Bush, Cheney exploiting 9-11 to launch a war of aggression is very, very solid. A person would have to be ideologically blinded not to see it.
Torture, a war of aggression, exposure of undercover agents. Fuck.
In contrast, there may have been unstated, real politik, motives for Gulf War I, but I don’t hate G. H. W. Bush for launching it. It was well planned, had a reasonable goal, and was not sold with cynical misdirection. I supported it.
And this has been pointed out many, many times and it’s the simple truth: All G.W. had to say was, “Girls and boys, it’s been great visiting with you today, but I’ve got to leave a little early to handle some business. Study hard and mind what your teacher says.”
You’re dealing with someone who thought it was “very important” that Fox News have Ted Nugent on one of its shows to discuss the constitutionality of something or other Obama did. I submit that if the Bush Administration had declared day is night, Scylla would be stumbling around blind in the sunlight.
Scylla, I think maybe part of what you don’t understand here is that for some people (actually, a lot of people, and not just “liberals”) what happened after 9/11; the war, the loss of civil liberties, the death of Iraqi civilians, is as bad or worse than 9/11 itself. We are really upset about 9/11, but for me, and others, what happened after actually does overshadow that day. I do objectively find it worse. And i won’t go into why here, although if you’re interested, I’ll be happy to try to explain.
But, see, there’s no day for that. There’s no “Remember When The PATRIOT Act Was Passed” Day. And because those things that happened were always justified by 9/11, what happened was, in my mind, 9/11 became tainted with them. And, see, this was a very real, normal, predictable consequence of tying all that partisan shit to the attack. So, yeah, when 9/11 comes around I do remember all that crap. Basically, the Republicans told me to! They told me 9/11 and the Iraq War were linked; you don’t get to be pissed now that they are! So, yeah, I feel some shame. And I think that’s fucked up too. But I don’t think it’s my fault because I’m unfit to live in society or whatever you said. I think it’s because they told me these things were connected, and hammered it home day after day, year after year. You can’t just wash that off.
If you are interested, truly, in seeing things from another perspective, start with the assumption that what happened after 9/11 is as bad or worse than what happened that day. Think about how all that disgusting partisan shit was plastered all over it. Do you maybe, sorta, kinda get why some people are upset?
Nice piece by Krugman… I think he said it simply… and without hyperbole…
They had me… Bush… Giulani… they had me… I was down with them… A liberal dem from Chicago… and they proved once again… it’s all about what they can get from it… Always…
Let’s not and say we did, okay? You and I have already had this particular debate about a dozen over 12 years, and life is to short to waste it on this, with you, again. Besides, it has nothing to do with the OP.
You can start a thread about why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq on your own.
Absolutely. To the extent that Krugman’s sentiments reflect the left in general, I do extend the condemnation.
Yup.
I can see where you might think that. In fact, I’ve spent a lot of time on this board and argued my positions against a left leaning majority, and so I think I have a pretty good grasp on the basic positions and values.
Sometimes you examine something and it causes you to question your beliefs. Other times it reinforces and strengthens them.
First off, I think Krugman’s viewpoint is scarily myopic, secondly, he bankrupts any merit by the way he makes his arguments.
I think when a Peta representative throws blood on somebody for wearing fur, they are wrong, and their actions make them a bad person because it is simply not justified under any circumstances.
Screaming hateful bile into an Op-Ed,which is what Krugman did, is similarly unjustifiable.
Now, you may accuse me of doing the same thing, but I have no problem with a little hypocrisy, and I would have no trouble throwing blood on a blood thrower, or returning bile with bile. It’s not so much hypocrisy as poetic justice.
But yes, I think if you look at Krugman’s op-ed, and you think it’s good and you agree with it, there’s something broken in you.
And, I’m pretty sure I understand it completely. There are certain things, that when you start to do them habitually, they become a slippery slope, they have a cost on your soul, and the horror is that along with the humanity you lose by your actions, you also lose the ability to recognize what you’re lacking.
I’ve been here since 99, and been a part of most of those debates, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the positions.
And you know what pissed me off about it? I don’t think the left, in the terms of it’s politicians and representatives has been sincere. I think they have gone along with it, the Patriot Act, the wars, etc, because even though they thought it was bad in many ways, it was still necessary.
Than, having partipated in making these things happen, they then proceed to place all the blame on the Republicans.
As evidence, take a look at Obama. As far as I can tell, he has followed the Bush doctrine to a T. He even started his own shooting war. He hasn’t changed anything.
Bush meant what he said. I give him that, and I think it’s a pretty big thing, to mean what you say and say what you mean. If Bush had said he was going to close Gitmo, Gitmo would be closed.
You would think Obama would receive twice the scorn Bush got. The first full measure for doing the same things and the second full measure for saying he has going to do something else. But, he seems to skate.
Stupidly, partisans continue to be partisan. I point out to my Republican/Conservative friends that Obama’s big government foreign adventurism policies are virtually indistinguishable from Bush’s and they just stare.
Lefties seem to give him a pass. This is puzzling to me. I would be more pissed at somebody who pretended to be on my side than at somebody who was honest in their opposition.
Anyhow, I don’t excuse Krugman’s behavior, or anybody on the left who believes or behaves similarly because independant of the the issues at hand, those kind of attitudes and actions suck.
I understand that viewpoint. It is silly it assumes that the partisan shit only happened on one side. It didn’t.
Ah, a born-again virgin, are you? That’s why the vitriol toward someone simply telling you who you are?
Odd how you’ve never told us how wrong you were, or how you came to realize it. Or in just what way you are the “better man” you claim to be, if that is indeed the case at all, the evidence before us being rather lacking.
If you honestly think progressives aren’t upset at Obama for continuing the policies started by Bush, you aren’t paying attention.
I mean, seriously? You think I (for example) don’t have a TON of anger towards the politicians who went along with this garbage back then, just because there was a D by their name? Do you think I’m not STILL angry about it? I’m disgusted! I had to practically force myself to vote in the last couple elections, because there is NO ONE on the ballot I felt I could stand. I wrote in my own name for my representative, who was a Democrat, because he was a fucking piece of shit (and leaving part of my ballot blank invalidates it here).
To the issue closer at hand, do you think Krugman hasn’t raked Obama over the coals about this stuff? Because he has. Do you think he was on the side of the Dems who voted for the war? He wasn’t.
So, when you examine an opposing viewpoint, reject it, and then attack it, you’ve merely reinforced and strengthened your beliefs. When Krugman examines, rejects, and attacks and opposing viewpoint, he’s myopic?
I think we’ve come around again to the idea that the only difference between you and Krugman is your politics. The only thing wrong that Krugman has done, which you have not done, is hold a generally leftist POV. Which is fine. If you want to Pit the guy for being a liberal, Pit the guy for being a liberal. But don’t try to dress yourself up as a non-partisan. Your beef with this guy is purely partisan.
What you’re doing here is nothing less than insisting on special treatment for being a conservative. If you attack a figure on the left, it’s poetic justice. If someone on the left attacks a figure on the right, they’re a bad person whose actions are not justified under any circumstances. That’s a pretty telling point right there, actually. You’ve just flat out stated that what the left does cannot possibly be justified, and then immediately turn around and justify doing exactly the same thing as “poetic justice.”
This isn’t just “a little hypocrisy,” this is a double standard of such staggering proportions that it should throw your entire ethical framework into question.
Yes. Yes it does. But not, I’m afraid, in the way you think.
Sorry, what “psychoanalyzing” have I done? Where have I engaged in ad hominem? The closest I’ve come to that is saying that your ethical framework is questionable, and I did that after illustrating, using your own direct statements, a massive double standard in your behavior. I can appreciate that it’s not a nice thing to read about yourself, but it’s a far cry from (for example) saying people are “broken” if they disagree with you.