Blame Bush? Krugman says "No"
From his NYT article on Truthout...
"What we need to realize is that the infamous "Bush bubble," the administration's no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there's a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job - and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias."
...
I agree with his conclusion and further wonder if true conservatives will ever have control of the Republican Party again?
-dta
13 comments:
I can't agree with this, it's too broad-brushed.
First off, for a liberal to condemn a conservative Republican for "moral squalor" is a huge joke in the "pot calling the kettle black" category. Moral relativism is an invention of the left; the right is more absolutist.
Then we have the assumption that we torture people. I guess the answer to that is dependent on your definition of torture. If you have your own definition, as Krugman apparently does, you can make statements like that. Everything I have heard coming out of Guantanamo seems pretty mild to me.
Finally, Krugman repeatedly questions Bush and the candidate's inability to face "reality"? Whose reality? I'm tired of hardcore leftists deciding that their worldview constitutes reality. Sometimes they may be right, certainly sometimes they are wrong but it's always apparently "truth" and "reality" with them regardless.
And that's bullshit.
So "moral squalor" is negated because Krugman is a relativist but you're okay with the "Bush...degraded our government and undermined the rule of law; he has led us into strategic disaster" part. Touche!
This was not about whether we have/are continuing to torture people, it is about what the followers of the Republican party have come to want from their future leaders -- more torture, more guitmo, more shock and awe.
This Administration has repeatedly demonstrated the inability to grasp with reality. From Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz, from "we will be greeted as liberators" to "the insurgency is in its last throws" and as pointed out in the article "heckuva job".
Just because I might have left a part of Krugman's piece alone doesn't mean I didn't find fault with it.
As to the rest....I honestly don't know. Perhaps that's why I get prickly with those who presume to know. I think it's safe to say that had any of us known that Iraq would devolve into a sectist nightmare we all would have thought twice about the war....well....maybe....Saddam was still a pretty dangerous dude and probably warranted taking out either way.
Ponder this: Saddam held Iraq together the same way Tito did Yugoslavia. Threats, fear, ruthlessness, and intimidation. Remove those elements and the whole thing flies apart. It's not a moral issue, it's a societal issue.
I must admit that I was one of those that thought that Iraqis would avail themselves of the opportunity to make a new, just society. I was wrong. Bush is wrong. But the problem just doesn't go away - action is needed.
Gonzo wrote: had any of us known that Iraq would devolve into a sectist nightmare we all would have thought twice about the war.
Are you friggin' kidding me? Are you friggin' kidding me?
Bush 1 knew! Clinton knew! So many, many people knew and expressed it.
Your ignorance here appalls me, but Bush's ignorance and apparent unwillingness to learn is even worse.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
My "ignorance"? I may be many things but ignorant is not one of them.
Perhaps I worded it wrong - I believed that the modern, sophisticated Iraqi culture would win out over tribal rivalries. I still believe there's a chance for that but it's a complicated picture. There are many external influences trying to tear apart Iraq...and succeeding. It's not a liberal (or conservative) soundbite situation.
But I really, really take umbrage at the "ignorance" label. I probably have studied hundreds of more material on the history and culture of the region than you have. I try to take reasoned positions after careful thought, not parrot some sloganistic crap like you. In fact, in a test of facts and knowledge of the region, I would take you apart...while yawning. So be very careful who you call ignorant.
"So be very careful who you call ignorant."
Gonz, you might want to consider taking your own advice first, if you want us to think it's worth listening to.
I want you to think, PERIOD.
I will kick your ass up and down the block blindfolded on historical and leading facts. I have forgotten more world history and sociology than you currently know. Last I looked, I speak 4 times more languages than you.
That doesn't mean you can't analyze - it means you can't be a putz.
What you are relying on in most cases are partisan and questionable opinion. In that case, I could give a rats ass what you think as to my "ignorance" because you can't even posit your own opinion without help.
Kinda a one eyed man in the kingdom of the (willfully) blind, doncha think?
Better work on your reading skills, Gonz. I didn't call you ignorant: I said that if you didn't want to be called ignorant, you had to be slower at slinging your own insults around.
E perché credi che parla tanto piú lingue di me? (My Italian teacher is probably rolling over in her grave.)
(Und auch mein Deutschesprachelehrer...)
Gonzo wrote: But I really, really take umbrage at the "ignorance" label. I probably have studied hundreds of more material on the history and culture of the region than you have. I try to take reasoned positions after careful thought, not parrot some sloganistic crap like you. In fact, in a test of facts and knowledge of the region, I would take you apart...while yawning. So be very careful who you call ignorant....
I will kick your ass up and down the block blindfolded on historical and leading facts. I have forgotten more world history and sociology than you currently know. Last I looked, I speak 4 times more languages than you.
---------------
Calling names, making claims about yourself, threatening us! The signs of a bully who has no rational leg to stand on.
When you state that nobody knew Iraq would turn into the sectarian blood bath it has become, you demonstrate your ignorace of facts. You can't pass that off as "opinion". Too many people knew. Oh, you must be listening to
William Kristol ""There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all."
No one "knew" anything. There were varying opinions.
Woah....diverted by a performance of the original Genesis on TV! :-)
Gonzo said...
No one "knew" anything. There were varying opinions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-intel26may26,1,3634664.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
Bush was twice warned of Iraq challenges
Prewar reports alerted the president to the difficulty of establishing democracy, among other assessments that proved accurate.
By James Gerstenzang
Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2007
WASHINGTON — Two months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies twice warned the Bush administration that establishing a democracy there would prove difficult and that Al Qaeda would use political instability to increase its operations, according to a Senate report released Friday.
The report, issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, brought to light once-classified warnings that accurately forecasted many of the military and political problems the Bush administration and Iraqi officials have faced since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states.
Post a Comment