Monday Mirthiness – a cancel-a-thon in the making

I read Paul Krugman’s column once in awhile, and I always come away feeling abused. Yesterday when I read his column, my first thought was that “if I had a subscription, I’d cancel it”. Apparently I wasn’t the only one.

This could be the start of something big:

Click image for the story

I see this as a candidate for going viral on FB and Twitter.

Here’s the Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

About these ads

150 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness – a cancel-a-thon in the making

  1. I appreciate your feeling of abuse. The guy writes like a he’s taking an emotional dump all over the page. However, he is not saying that 9/11 was shameful for America. He seems to be saying that the political response to the atrocity was shameful. Big difference. Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.

    REPLY: “Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.” No argument there, free speech is the cornerstone of our republic. By the same token, so is our ability to choose whom we want to read or listen to. Choosing to subscribe (or not) is a personal choice. – Anthony

  2. BTW, I would like to say that from my New Zealand home I have been closely following the preparations of Ground Zero for the 10th anniversary and have been deeply moved by the commemorative ceremonies. The Ground Zero memorial waterfalls with the victims’ names cut in bronze is a truly inspiring poetic tribute.

  3. Mike Jowsey says:
    September 12, 2011 at 10:44 am
    “Whether one agrees or not, one should allow him to have his point of view.”

    Cancelling a subscription is not censorship. Krugman can have his view, but I nor anyone else is required to listen to or read it.

  4. The freedom of speech means even some idiots and Mr. Paul Krugman can speak their mind.

    Freedom of action means we can respond to a good idea when we see one. Like the idea to cancel subscriptions to media that publish/employ idiots and Mr. Paul Krugman. Like canceling a subscription to the NYT while letting the world know we canceled and why we did.

    Ahhh . . . . the smell of freedom in the afternoon.

    Personal Note: I haven’t bought a NYT for +25 yrs or supported the NYT online. You can get better news coverage from multiple other sources.

    John

  5. There is no Nobel prize for economics. The prize is administered by the Nobel foundation but was established by the central bank of Sweden. It is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. It really pisses me off when people insist on calling this moron a Nobel prize winner.

  6. I just finished Conscience of a Liberal. It isn’t a “pure” piece like Friedman’s Free to Choose. He uses the book to slime the Republicans. Friedman extolled individual freedom and capitalism, but I don’t recall him trying to figure out why people vote for Democrats like Krugman did for Republicans. I agree with the poster above, Krugman is a political hack.

  7. @ mkelly and Anthony:
    Thanks for focusing on the freedom of speech versus cancellation of subscription thing. It highlighted to me that I fogged the point I wanted to make by saying too much. My point was that Krugman was not saying “Shame on America for 9/11″, but “Shame on American politicians for their response to 9/11″.

  8. Sadly here in Blighty we have the BBC, for which we have no choice. Therefore we get to hear this kind of thing all the time. Its the broadcasting organ of the 500k circulation Guardian/Independant mindset that is forced into 25million homes with no balance at all.
    And hence the Guardian/BBC axis to make the NOTW hacking scandal the biggest crime of the century….nice result in canning NI’s intended ‘Fox News UK’……….heaven forbid the British public could chose between left/right PR and make thier own minds up.
    God I hate the BBC….

    Think yourself lucky over there in the US, at least you have a choice of broadcastor as well as paper, our failing poor circulation papers have a megaphone into all our homes (except mine…I refuse to listen to BBC news anymore, hurrah!)

  9. mkelly says:
    September 12, 2011 at 11:01 am

    “Cancelling a subscription is not censorship. Krugman can have his view, but I nor anyone else is required to listen to or read it.”

    You are so right. I get so tired of people screaming “censorship” in cases like this. Censorship can only be done by the government. If a private entity bans certain speech (or writing) on its private site or property, it ain’t censorship – it’s ownership.

  10. Krugman has a right to his opinions. He doesn’t have a right to have a newspaper column any more than I can be forced to subscribe to any rag that prints it.

  11. One of the advantages in having free speech is that it allows Paul Krugman and Al Gore to demonstrate their stupidity for all to see and judge for themselves. Long live free speech, just don’t demand that I be charged for hearing speech from which I disagree.

  12. Michael J Alexander says:
    September 12, 2011 at 10:49 am

    “…nothing but a glorified political hack.”

    Not so glorified.

  13. I frequent RealClearPolitics (www.realclearpolitics.com), where each day there’s a fresh list of political articles and blogs that cover the left, the center and the right. Krugman is a frequent contributor, but for the past year, the titles to his articles have become increasingly harsh. It’s as if he’s losing his sense of perspective as the US economy drags along with no recovery; as Obama makes one silly gaff after another, and as Keynsian Economics is shown to remain on the trash heap of discredited ideas.

    And because Krugman thinks he’s so right, being shown in practice that he’s so wrong just has to hurt an otherwise stupendous ego. Yesterday’s rant was pretty much the manifestation of an ego in meltdown.

  14. I didnt mind the article. Everybody in this country is entitled to their own opinions. But the fact he disabled comments to his little rant is just completely childish, shallow and cowardly.

  15. Krugman lays claim to being an “intellectual”. Yet, in his articles, I only see intellect being used to rationalize preconceived notions — rather than sound logical arguments that could sway an open mind. I suppose being an ideologue “pays the bills”.

    I usually avoid his articles — reading them only occasionally to better understand the thinking of those having the ideological viewpoint he represents.

  16. Krugman: “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”
    It is Krugman himself who does the poisoning. The shame is all his.

  17. Yet another illustration of the political lefts vicious vilification of anyone they don’t agree with, whether it be Republicans, Conservatives, The Tea Party grassroots groups, Right To Work groups, Constitutionalists, religious groups, supporters of conventionally available inexpensive power, Deniers of Man Made Global Warming, etc. etc. etc.

  18. I can’t imagine why anyone still has a subscription to the the NY Times. It’s been a pretty poor news outlet for many years now. Krugman’s article is not all that much worse than much of the rest of its content.

  19. The NYT’s circulation is dropping. Probably, in part, due to the likes of Krugman.

    However, the world would be a sadder place with out the Friday, Saturday and Sunday NYT Crossword puzzles.

  20. speaking of Al Gore, he’s apparently having a day long Telethon today to shriek about how EVIILLL! the Climate Skeptics are. I wonder how fare he will get before he starts slurring his words badly and weeping while holding onto a globe.

  21. From Rumsford’s point of view, surely Krugman’s position is a “known known”? Krugman has the same mental disease that Chomsky caught those many years ago. The piece is just in incredible bad taste and illustrates the vice of which he charges others.

  22. Mike Jowsey says:
    September 12, 2011 at 11:15 am

    It was Krugman’s claiming that the actions of the politicians that was shamefull is why many are reacting as they are.
    Whether one agrees with the things done in the war on terror or not, Krugman’s word’s were way beyond the pale.

  23. He’s no different from any “economist”. 98% of them failed to predict the 2008 crash, and 98% of them are saying the same things Krugman says. They insist that printing and donating trillions to the investors who caused the crash was a good move, and that we MUST print and donate even more trillions to the investors who caused the crash. This is the only way we can avoid “falling back into recession.”

    None of this makes a lick of sense by any of the actual laws of economics. Hyperinflation does not create jobs. But it makes perfect sense if you treat it as threats by Mafia consiglieri who are speaking on behalf of a giant blackmail operation.

    Thus the “economists”, by their own statements, should be in jail along with their investor bosses.

  24. Ask yourself what it would take for Krugman or any other of his meretricious ilk to understand that (like Churchill’s “Hun”) murderous Muslim jihadis are “either at your feet or at your throat.” But then, Krugman’s wares are long since past their expiration date, as is the scrofulous rag that blazons forth such tripe.

  25. The amazing thing is that Rumsfeld was still subscribing to the NYT before the Krugman article. That rag long since lost whatever legitimacy it once had. Now it’s just a mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic Party. Judging from its comments section, pretty much everyone not on the leftist fringe has already abandoned it.

  26. Somebody should tell that village missing its idiot that we have located him in the NYT building pretending to be a journalist.

  27. “This could be the start of something big”

    I doubt it. Anyone with any sense had already cancelled his/her subscription long ago.

  28. Who knows what Krugman really is trying to say and who cares as he is the political hack pointed out by many on this post. The fact is, however, that the 911 attack was, and continues to be, politicized by both sides. This is unfortunate though not unusual for such an event. Krugman’s article is a blatant example of such politicization.

  29. I’m surprised the Left has not questioned why a bum like Rumsfeld was ever allowed to subscribe to the Holy Grail of newspapers. (/sarc) I’m more surprised that Don would subscribe to a rag like the Times. Don’t recall who said it, but someone thought Krugman’s “Nobel” prize was the first time it was awarded ‘posthumously’.

  30. @Fred from Canuckistan

    “Somebody should tell that village missing its idiot that we have located him in the NYT building pretending to be a journalist.”

    Actually, Krugman’s more likely location is in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. Or maybe in the lecture halls where he is teaching the next generation of elite economists.

  31. Word has it that Paul baby was several cocktails for the better (or worst) when he let if fly…
    So much for self publishing rights.

  32. By far the best part of the article for me was the last sentence:

    “I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.”

    Yes, Paul, quite obvious. You’re a spineless coward.

    But then, looking back over the artilce, Paul says:

    “Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.”

    And I realized that my earlier response was far too hasty. It might not be solely that he is a spineless coward. It might be that after penning that “fake heroes” line he was too enamored of it to let it go, but realized the ovbious parallels to his prose regarding fake scientists rushing in to take advantage of manufactured horror in the AGW scam and closet socialists (or maybe not so closeted) like Krugman taking advantage of the horror of the housing crisis (brought on by socialist policies) to tout the socialist agenda to an adoring press and win Nobel honors.

    OK. There I go again. I can’t decide which one of those is more relevant to why he closed out comments “for obvious reasons.”

  33. Dump the Times with Krugman. Instead, watch Nickelodeon with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, also in New York, but funny.

  34. I don’t usually read the nytimes, but I subscribe to the daily crossword … I’m sure they’re happy that I’ve cancelled; the reasons have been long outstanding, but with krugnan’ editorial I can no longer avoid this necessary step … Bill capron

  35. Peter says:
    September 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

    I thought this site purported to be a science blog, not a Republican Club…
    Most Independents don’t like Krugman, either, so you have about 20-25% Democrats that read the NYTimes. I’m not sure what percent agree with Komrad Krugman, but the masthead for WUWT generally gives wide latitude for everything news-worthy here, even as it sports a caricature of Al Gore (?) some miles above sea level (maybe he’s suffering from asphyxia, hence his penchant to revel in “reality” for 24 hours as he comes down off his perch)?

  36. The Years of Shame
    Quote – “And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.”

    My question is – did Mr Krugman lie writing the line?

    Regards

  37. Actually, this is all Krugman’s fault.

    The subdued mood is understandable in light of the financial and economic crisis in the US and Europe.

    In the 1990’s under president Clinton / advisor Krugman a new policy was created to “cure” any economic crisis and stimulate the economy with a flood of cheap money. Super low interest rates and cheap money was the response to the Mexico crisis, the Asia crisis, the Long Term Capital Hedge Fund crisis, and the year 2000 bug pseudo crisis.

    The flood of cheap money led to a massive extension of the financial sector, it was the birthplace of hedgefunds as we know them today and the time when philantropist billionaieres made their fortunes and started to buy into politics

    In 1999/2000 the party peaked, people quit their jobs to become rich in the stock market, particularly the DotCom bubble, and investments have increasingly turned away form production to the much more lucrative money shuffling businesses. .

    When president Bush took over, the bubble has just started to collapse Curing the then biggest bubble economy in history would have required excessive Regan style high interest rates and certainly have caused a 1929 style depression.

    A few months into office and after 9/11, understandably nobody was willing to go this way.So overspending and undersaving, loss of production / manufacturing and excessive wealth transfer from the working middle class to the money shufflers continued until in 2008, when the biggest crisis ever, the mother of all crisis started to unfold.

    And guess what – this monster crisis was created by Clinton / Krugman as well. Their drive to increase homeownership went way too far. The following policy excerpt had already all ingredients that led to the 2008 collapse:

    “For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”

    So it is all Krugman’s fault and I think somehow, he knows it.

    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

  38. Praemyslaw said: “…my questions — does Mr. Krugman lie writing the line?

    Does a ring-tailed cat have rings on it’s tail?

  39. I do not believe in censorship. However since the New York Times is a for profit publication then technically it is through people paying them for content that employees them. So if you choose to stop reading a paper, that is a fiscal choice, and if you choose to do so because the content offends you, well, why pay for something that offends you?

  40. How on Earth can one get any prize for economics never mind a nobel prize? I suppose the award of the nobel prize was given to him by the panel because they remembered that Nobel was associated with dynamite and blowing up things. It is easier to destroy than to build. As a “Science”, are findings in economics reproducible and predictable?

  41. Don Rumsfeld is hardly an impartial observer. This blog has not said much about what Krugman actually wrote. The timing of his article might be inappropriate since at this anniversary it is right and proper to focus on the victims of the atrocity.

    However Krugman does have a point in criticising the response to 9/11. Iraq seems to have had nothing to do with that attack but how many tens of thousands of innocent people (some estimates say hundreds of thousand) have been killed there since the invasion that was justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction? Can anyone seriously claim that the aftermath of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was handled well?

    Furthermore Krugman’s views on economics, and the criticisms made of them, have no connection with his views on 9/11 and this whole subject has nothing to do with climate change.

    Some of the comments on this subject just give ammunition to those who claim that CAGW sceptics are just a bunch of xenophobic right wing cranks.

  42. I expect Krugman’s column was in response to Tom Engelhardt’s far more aggressive treatment, though PK doesn’t say so. Search “Let’s Cancel 9/11″ if you’re interested.

  43. well, since I can’t read krugman’s article, I can’t comment on whatever he said.
    but i am inspired to comment that i won’t have any feeling about it on the basis of hearsay.
    also, i don’t like to have people tell me what i should like or not – because i consider demagoguery offensive and insulting.
    also, i am pretty sick of political animals of all stripes cashing in on a tragedy for a snide agenda.
    also, attacking iraq as a response was actually criminal since they didn’t do it.
    also, if you remember, the wmd that were as elusive as the signature of AWG – well, don’t expect me to choose that side – it was, indeed, shameful.
    i’m also quite fearful of jingoism. mobs are stupid, ugly and dangerous.
    so i won’t be mobbing with y’all. i’ll be holding my nose.
    this article stank.

    REPLY: apparently you aren’t good at following links, so here it is for you:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

    – Anthony

  44. Bush-Cheney over-reacted and got us into two unfunded wars (one of which was totally unnecessary) which have driven our country to near bankruptcy. They lied, tortured, and trampled on our civil rights. 10 years later, we are a diminished country. Many of you righties are too busy blaming “obama-care” to take a good long look in the mirror.

  45. >> Roy says:
    September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    However Krugman does have a point in criticising the response to 9/11. Iraq seems to have had nothing to do with that attack but how many tens of thousands of innocent people (some estimates say hundreds of thousand) have been killed there since the invasion that was justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction? <<

    Krugman has no point. The word 'lie' is a red flag pointing out the glaring exaggeration of the left. A lie is when you say something that you know isn't true. No one 'lied' about Iraq having WMDs. The CIA had poor intelligence, but George Tenet told what he thought was the truth. There were clearly mistakes made, but I don't remember any politician claiming Iraq was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks.

    The body count in Iraq is a great example of misuse of 'science', but that's a topic for another thread.

    Back to the original point. Rather than remember the heroes and victims of the 9/11 attack, Krugman used the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack as a backdrop for his partisan diatribe, essentially doing what he accused others of doing, but in a much more offensive manner. And the NYT chose to publish it.

  46. C’mon, everyone knows that Krugman is the NY Times leading [snip].

    What did he actually do to be called a brilliant economist? I mean other than marrying a fabulously wealthy idiot women who actually married a prize winner, not a man of any worth that I can glean.

    REPLY: Maybe it’s time to raise the level of discourse a bit? REP

  47. I don’t know enough about what went on in US political circles in the aftermath of 9/11 to comment on Krugman’s blog post. But one thing stands out a mile. His timing sucked.

  48. Me thinks many readers need to spend more time thinking about what is being said. I can’t say I disagree with Krugman. Looking southeast from Calgary it is painfully obvious that Mistakes Were Made but not by any of the politicians of the day. Maybe it is just me but I see a host of short sighted and downright stupid resulting reactions which are shameful.

  49. Good for Krugman! I’ve asked and never heard a Republican gee a cogent moral justification for the second Iraq war. Krugman is simply pointing that immorality out. Are we shocked that Rumsfeld does not want to hear the criticism?

  50. touche. thanks for the link, Anthony.
    I don’t find krugman’s statements offensive in the slightest.
    i do find exploitation of the tragedy to be vulgar and crass, just as he does.

    and sure, it’s cruel for him to point this out when demagogues are using it to incite an orgy of parochial jingoism – sort of like going to church and announcing that the bible stories are meant to fool you – cruel (meaning without sympathy) and also true.
    Perhaps his worst mistake was not having his article made into a script for southpark – ‘pigbearman’, for instance, might have been more engaging and got the message across via humor?
    so i won’t subscribe to this 5-minute-hate session. there are lots of worthy targets of loathing.
    krugman doesn’t make the short list today; it’s a very long line of very serious worthies, some of whom gave speeches this day.

  51. >> Utah says:
    September 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    Good for Krugman! I’ve asked and never heard a Republican gee a cogent moral justification for the second Iraq war. Krugman is simply pointing that immorality out. Are we shocked that Rumsfeld does not want to hear the criticism? <<

    Iraq fired on US aircraft enforcing the 1991 cease fire conditions. That ended the cease fire. No other justification was necessary.

    In actuality, several other justifications were made, WMD's being only one of them, and 9/11 NOT being one of them. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no one with any significant standing claimed it did, and Krugman must know that.

  52. Rumsfeld said he would cancel a subscription he already didn’t have.

    Poetry, sheer poetry.

    I’ve been getting pretty frustrated with the NY Times and considering cancelling my subscription to it almost weekly lately, but if Rumsfeld is against it I’ll go buy a second subscription!

    p.s. I don’t understand what makes this story appropriate for WUWT.

    [REPLY: think of it in the context of retractions and resignations. -REP mod]

  53. Re: scarletmacaw says:
    September 12, 2011 at 5:38 pm
    “In actuality, several other justifications were made, WMD’s being only one of them, and 9/11 NOT being one of them. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no one with any significant standing claimed it did, and Krugman must know that.”

    Mr Smart Aleck,

    Mr Krugman didn’t say Iraq had “something” to do with 9/11. You have problems with understanding what you read.

    BTW. In 2 minutes I’ve found two hyperlinks:

    1. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html
    Why I Oppose Bush’s Iraq War Resolution, by Sen. Russ Feingold:
    “But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President’s singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.”

    2. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
    President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
    Remarks by the President on Iraq
    Cincinnati Museum Center – Cincinnati Union Terminal
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    “We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.”

    Regards

  54. Utah says:
    September 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    WMD were found. A summary.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_May_11/ai_n6145019/

    Further confirmation…
    Some Iraqi chemical weapons went to Syria.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/4691464/Syria-rebuilding-chemical-weapons-capability.html

    Some chemical weapons stayed in Iraq.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

    Hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium were found and removed from Iraq.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

    Bioweapons were made, and could be reproduced.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/839413/posts

    West Nile Virus reasonably originated as Iraqi revenge weapon.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/24/180937.shtml

    There are articles in peer-reviewed literature that report extremely similar DNA sequences in strains isolated from Israel, Saudi Arabia (I think I remember it, but I can’t find it now), and Queens, NY. Very unlikely to occur naturally. WNV mutates rapidly, which is one reason it isn’t a good bioweapon.
    ftp://statgen.ncsu.edu/pub/thorne/viralreadings/lanciotti02.pdf
    The point is, we could have been attacked, and we weren’t going to wait for a better weapon to be used against us.

    Also, bin Laden allied with Saddam after 9/11.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2751019.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

    There were many good reasons for removing Saddam from power. Maybe one is enough: to save several hundred thousand people from being murdered every year under the Baath party, formed in Berlin during WW II as an extension of the Nazi party.

    http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/saddam_en.html

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20061129.aspx

    “During Saddam’s long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year.”

  55. I cancelled during the Athens Olympics, when I caught them politicizing the Games. In the Sports Pages, no less. It was the final straw.
    I no longer get p***ed off at breakfast every morning.

  56. Roy says:
    September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Don Rumsfeld is hardly an impartial observer. This blog has not said much about what Krugman actually wrote. The timing of his article might be inappropriate since at this anniversary it is right and proper to focus on the victims of the atrocity.

    However Krugman does have a point in criticising the response to 9/11. Iraq seems to have had nothing to do with that attack but how many tens of thousands of innocent people (some estimates say hundreds of thousand) have been killed there since the invasion that was justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction?

    How easily we forget the situation in and around Iraq at that time–how Sadam was still fighting Desert Storm in his own way, how he was constantly shooting at our jets that were patrolling the No Fly Zone, how he was butchering his own people and threatening his neighbor-states.

    Is it just convenient partial amnesia that makes you say what you do, Roy? I suppose one of Saddam’s big mistakes was an attempted assassination on GW’s father–or didn’t you know about that? That should piss off every patriotic American, but unfortunately, there were actually depraved individuals who were cheering for the enemy!

    Please dig into the history books for a full picture of what was going on during that time–telling just half the story makes you look half informed.

  57. And as a follow-up Roy, my daughter dated a Special Forces guy that was in Iraq days before “official” fighting began in this last war in which we finally eliminated Sadam, and he tells a completely different story about WMD–in fact, he corroborates much of what Hoser says above (6:39 pm.) I don’t really care what the “official” party-line is for WMD in Iraq–it’s as bogus as the “official” time when fighting began–and trust me, I believe the boys on the ground far more than some political spokesman for our “State Department”, many of whom I consider to be treasonous cowards.

    By the way, Iraq was never attached in response to 9-11; you deflect to serve your argumentative purposes. Iraq was, however, a serious threat to stability in the Middle East, just as several other countries–Egypt and Iran in particular, are the fomenters of current instability.

  58. The best way to deal with ignorant idiots like Krugman is to ignore them…after, of course, you cancel your subscription to the NY Times (if you have one…I don’t – never will).

  59. RockyRoad –
    there are alternative explanations for the iraq invasion. one can name many small justifications, but for going to war, something more serious has been america’s rationale.
    at the time, there were continuously updated contingency plans for the invasion of iraq and north.korea. ready to go.
    now, if there is a legitimate purpose of a government, it’s to protect the citizens from attack by foreign powers.
    when a dozen fanatics from saudi arabia proved that the government was incapable of fulfilling its unique responsibility, something had to be done to totally distract from the lesson. (meanwhile, their wahabi sponsors are quickly escorted back home from the bush ranch, )
    iraq was handy; they’d already been there, done that recently.
    it was so urgent to make a show of doing something – anything – that a new doctrine of ‘pre-emptive invasion’ was instituted for the occasion.
    this new doctrine instantly made the usa a credible threat to any other nation, because the justification can be any pretext desired – it only takes an protestation of fear.
    iraq was handy; they’d already been there, done that recently.

  60. Hoser says:
    September 12, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    Utah says:
    September 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    My score: Utah – 1, Hoser – 0. Why?

    I submit to WUWT readers only two texts to read:
    1. http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
    The United Nations, International Law, and the War with Iraq (it’s a must in the post comments’ context).
    2. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/iraq-s27.shtml
    German court declares Iraq war violated international law (also “a must” to get black-on-white proof of US Empire wrong doing)

    Regards

    [Snip: this portion is really intemperate. You might want to make your point in a less inflammatory way and resubmit. REP, mod]

  61. RockyRoad says:
    September 12, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    “By the way, Iraq was never attached in response to 9-11; you deflect to serve your argumentative purposes. Iraq was, however, a serious threat to stability in the Middle East, just as several other countries–Egypt and Iran in particular, are the fomenters of current instability.”

    You forget to add the Saudi Arabia who financed Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I wonder why? – “to serve your argumentative purposes?”

    Regards

    BTW. The U.S. is (quote) “a serious threat to stability” for the whole World. What the World should do with your (…)[auto-censorship] country and the people like you? Why you, too? You killed several hundred thousand people from Afghanistan and Iraq, to say the least. Not only the countries’ “hated” leaders.

  62. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    [Snip: this portion is really intemperate. You might want to make your point in a less inflammatory way and resubmit. REP, mod]

    What for?
    If you don’t want the American readers read what other guys of the World think about the US Empire let it be. After all, “freedom of expression” is a thing of the forgotten past in the US nowadays.

    Regards

    [Reply: you can make your points without being personally abusive to fellow commenters or engaging in incendiary rhetoric. REP, mod]

  63. Rumsfield is a liar and a war criminal. “Iraq was never attached in response to 9-11″ – true, but Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney all claimed Iraq was involved in the September 11th massacre, a deliberate lie. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result. Iraqis are terrorized by Sunni extremists: they weren’t before 2003. Why is this useful site dragging itself into the gutter with this disgusting article?

  64. I wasn’t a fan of the war in Iraq, but it was not a neo-cons-alone maneuver. Democrats tend to like to forget that the Congress voted on the action…. and approved it. Additionally as has been pointed out above WMD were not the main reason for the invasion, nor were they an invented excuse. The best information available suggested that they were real and that Iraq was ready to use them. Part of the reason for this is that Saddam, like North Korea, liked to exaggerate his strength. The decision of -the majority of the elected representatives of the nation was that we should not wait for another attack by our enemies – we should

    However, my real reason for posting is to comment on Krugman and to say whether or not one agrees with his statements, he used the 10 year anniversary of a national tragedy – one NOT caused by the people he dislikes so much – to take a cheap shot. He made no attempt to honor those brave Firemen and Policemen who sacrificed their lives to help the people in the towers.
    It seems that he doesn’t give a damn about them, nor the innocent victims who had done nothing to deserve death. Politics are more important to remember than humans.

  65. Krugman wrote under the banner, “The Conscience of a LIberal.” How many liberal apologies have you seen for banning DDT in malaria-ridden countries? How many liberal apologies for substitution of inferior fireproofing materials for asbestos in the WTC? How many liberal apologies for people starving to death as a result of diverting food to motor fuels? “Liberal conscience” is an oxymoron.

    (Apologies to any genuine liberals that come here often. Krugman style “liberals” are anything but.)

  66. Rod McLaughlin Sept 12,2011. I remember that day, I was at Uni, and my lecturer suspended lessons. ‘It would not be Saddam Hussein, he wouldn’t be that stupid it’s Osama bin Laden, the World will never be the same again”. Well there are contrived conspiracy theories, a lot of photo shopped stuff too. Like it was not an American airlines plane that hit the towers. A missile hit the Pentagon, etc. Flight 93 was shot down by the American air force. The twin towers had already been loaded with explosives too. (By whom do they suggest).

    The thing is that NORAD was stood down. If they hadn’t been they could have shot those planes down when they were not over populated areas. A lack of military intelligence and different departments not communicating? Much like the Pearl Harbor attack? They were warned by British Intelligence the Japanese fleet was heading their way. However, the various intelligence services just didn’t communicate until it was too late. Churchill was pleased meaning America would then join the Allies in their fight against the Axis coalition.

    One excuse by Rumsfeld was the fighter planes were too far away to do anything? Actually you know these planes fly very fast if required? There was a Mossad report that Saddam was involved, or conspiracy between Saddam and Osama. But Osama didn’t like Saddam! That’s what we heard heard anyway. Certainly Mossad also said, his WMD had been moved to Syria.

    Nevertheless, 9/11 will always remain in our hearts as one of the saddest and tragic days in World History. It certainly shook America but also Australia and UK too. Lest Not Forget.

  67. “By the same token, so is our ability to choose whom we want to read or listen to. Choosing to subscribe (or not) is a personal choice.” – Anthony

    Which is why I chose not to click the link. I’ll not be contributing to his web hits or the papers advertising revenue.

  68. I actually agree with Krugman. In the days after 9/11 most of the world was sympathetic towards the USA. People came together from all walks of life to help the familes of the victims and to mourn their loss. Now, 9/11 is remembered mostly as the catalyst for an illegal and expensive war which accomplished nothing, the illegal torturing of detainess which accomplished nothing and the longest war in American history which, when said and done, will have accomplished nothing.

  69. Well at least now Obama is doing so much better job, moving out ‘stable’ and ‘unstable’ ME dictators faster and cheaper thus allowing the muslim brotherhood to take over in Egypt right away, next up Libya.
    This didn’t happen in Iraq after Saddam fell.

  70. JC says:
    September 12, 2011 at 11:07 am

    There is no Nobel prize for economics. The prize is administered by the Nobel foundation but was established by the central bank of Sweden. It is known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. It really pisses me off when people insist on calling this moron a Nobel prize winner.

    “In conjunction with its tercentenary celebrations in 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) instituted a new award, “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” on the basis of an economic commitment by the bank in perpetuity. The award is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.”

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/articles/lindbeck/index.html

    “…according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.” is a strong indicator that the Nobel Prize Organization does not see the prize as being different from the other prizes it awards. They state at their website that it is the same as the other prizes. “A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.”

    Beyond you being offended by some people not calling “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” by its proper name, are there any differences that make you disagree with the Nobel Prize Organization?

  71. Rod McLaughlin says:
    September 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney all claimed Iraq was involved in the September 11th massacre.

    Where did you get that idea? Iraq was a separate issue from the 9/11 attacks. There were many UN resolutions attempting to give Saddam an opportunity to live up to world demands. Saddam refused. Finally, bombs dropped on Baghdad March 20, 2003.

    http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

    However, because of subsequent actions by Al Qaeda, Iraq later became a battleground against the same people we were fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere. E.g. Zarqawi.

  72. Is this the you we all took exception to?:

    Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

    .

    I’m with Peter:

    I thought this site purported to be a science blog, not a Republican Club…

    Viewing from outside the United States a site dedicated to truth-in-science promoting the table thumping views of a prominent advocate of the Iraq invasion is most extraordinary. And a little frightening.

    So these guy are real heroes? Seriously? Do we defend the use of the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq and so much death and misery — to what purpose? Peace? Revenge? What? To generate more hatred to justify more war?

    Many of us outsiders continue to question Rumsfeld’s justification of an invasion, which, at the time, and despite massive propaganda, did not have majority support in most (any?) European countries, nor in Australia and not NZ.

    Fine to have your memorial. Fine to have it on this site. No one is challenging that. But please, Anthony — this has happened before on this blog, where the temptation to cross the overlapped with US Republicanism was too great. My vote is to stick to the science and the politics of the science, but leave alone the US politics of war — if only to show respect for those lovers of truth and science who might, nevertheless, view it from another side.

  73. Just to set the record straight: Rumsfeld cancelled his personal subscription to the NYT years ago. He still has an office, which up until the Krugman column had an institutional subscription. That is now cancelled, and deservedly so. I, for one, am glad Rumsfeld still had a subscription he could cancel, thus making a point about Krugman and his column.

  74. From berniel on September 13, 2011 at 2:03 am:

    My vote is to stick to the science and the politics of the science, but leave alone the US politics of war — if only to show respect for those lovers of truth and science who might, nevertheless, view it from another side.

    Of course all those protesters shouting “No blood for oil!” who push for renewable energy as both needed to fight (C)AGW and eliminate the need for foreign oil (perhaps any fossil oil), thus eliminating what they perceive as the reason for the fighting in Iraq (and usually Afghanistan as well), and now to also prevent the future prophesied “climate wars”, likewise have a problem separating “climate science” from politics.

    It is all mixed together, has been for awhile, and not by we skeptics. Your complaints are equivalent to asking for the raisins to be picked out of all the oatmeal raisin cookies on this site, since this site should only sell plain oatmeal cookies.
    ===

    Peter said on September 12, 2011 at 11:52 am:

    I thought this site purported to be a science blog, not a Republican Club…

    I tend to think this site actually focuses on realism, separating reality from fantasy, no matter how dressed up is the fantasy. Once acceptance of reality takes place in a human mind, it grows to take on many forms and changes many personal viewpoints. One’s perception of science including certain branches of it, their own finances (especially how money is extracted from their wallet), their politics…

    Conservative political views, actually what is more properly considered as “non-‘progressive'”, match well with the skeptical views of the climate, namely “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it!” So don’t be surprised when you see both traveling together.

  75. I saw this yesterday, and what I found a bit interesting is that they disabled comments on this particular piece.

    It’s only a matter of time ’til the gray lady ceases to be relevant if they insist on fronting for the extreme leftist/marxist dogma.

    Krugman is a sad relic, as is the NYT

  76. >> berniel says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
    Is this the you we all took exception to?:

    Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons. <<

    Yes. As I said before, Krugman took the anniversary of the 9/11 attack, and ignored the heroes and victims of 9/11 to use it as a background for a partisan diatribe. Whether or not you agree with his partisan poilitics, his use of the day to push a political agenda was beyond offensive.

    The claim that the 9/11 attack was 'used to justify and unrelated war' [Iraq] was also a flat out lie, but that's nothing new for Krugman's columns. Several have pointed it out only because others have asked what was wrong with Krugman's statement, or claimed that they agreed with it.

  77. >> Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm
    Mr Smart Aleck,

    Mr Krugman didn’t say Iraq had “something” to do with 9/11. You have problems with understanding what you read.

    BTW. In 2 minutes I’ve found two hyperlinks: <<

    1. I didn't say that Krugman said that. Krugman said that "then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war". Iraq was 'the unrelated war'. The 9/11 attack was not used to justify the Iraq war.

    2. Your second link quoting Bush shows that he found Iraq's post 9/11 support for the attack offensive, but it was not a claim by Bush that that justified the Iraq war. If the Bush speech in Cincinnati is the big evidence of claiming Bush 'used the attack to justify [Iraq]' then you have nothing. Your first hyperlink is just a comment on the speech by a political opponent of Bush.

    3. Nice personal attack. The left seems to have that skill in common with the alarmists.

  78. This little piece perfectly illustrates the LIberal’s idea of Freedom of Speech. I get to say exactly what I want, and you are not allowed to react (by him not allowing comments). The Freedom for me but not for thee.

    Krugman is either a stupid man or simply a man who enjoys being a gadfly rather than an intelligent commentator.

    Frankly, the people I know who espouse Krugman as their intellectual shinging light tend to be unemployed, unmarried, over educated, drains on society. That tells you all you need to know about Comrade Krugmanski.

  79. Pokerguy, give me an example of some of your rights that were trampled.

    Iraq may have been unnecessary in direct relationship to 9/11, but it was a festering wound that needed cleaned up and was a center of instablilty in the region and Hussein certainly would have used US preoccupation in Afghanistan to his advantage, as he already was by paying ransoms to Palistinian suicide bombers, firing on coalition aircraft, and making belligernt overtones towards Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunatly the invasion was tied to WMDs rather than a whole littanly of other reasons for going in.

    And now, tell me how Obama has rectified the errors of Bush-Cheney? Or has he doubled down?

    pokerguy says:
    September 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
    Bush-Cheney over-reacted and got us into two unfunded wars (one of which was totally unnecessary) which have driven our country to near bankruptcy. They lied, tortured, and trampled on our civil rights. 10 years later, we are a diminished country. Many of you righties are too busy blaming “obama-care” to take a good long look in the mirror.

  80. The U.S. doesn’t rely on foreign opinion to dictate its foreign policy. Usually if we can get the buy in of the Brits, that’s good enough, since they are the only military that is even useful on the battlefield. If we went with the majority of the UN we’d simply be nuking Israel all day, everyday, since that is the only evil country on Allaha’s Green Earth. Syria has killed more protesters in 2011 than Israel has in its entire history (and most of those were accidental). Where’s the UN?

    The U.S. took up the mantle of civilization to fight the forces of chaos. Al Queda wanted nothing more than to make a ruin of civilized, modern life by tossing chaos and fear into the everyday mix.
    —-
    Many of us outsiders continue to question Rumsfeld’s justification of an invasion, which, at the time, and despite massive propaganda, did not have majority support in most (any?) European countries, nor in Australia and not NZ.

  81. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 12:35 am

    Rod McLaughlin says:
    September 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney all claimed Iraq was involved in the September 11th massacre.

    Where did you get that idea?

    here maybe?
    “CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

    That’s according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

  82. The Left also likes to omit the fact that Tenet was a Clinton appointee. It’s not like he was some Cheney protege looking to make good with the boss.

  83. I am fed up with how authoritarians of the left have commandeered the term, ‘Liberal’. Ironic that Krugman, in his article,’Liberal with a Conscience’ says he won’t allow any responses to his diatribe. Now isn’t that just typical of the left wing media and the gatekeepers of AGW science?.

  84. Or here perhaps?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

    ” Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff’s finding, …
    The panel’s executive director, Philip D. Zelikow, said the finding referred to a lack of evidence of “operational” ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

    Vice President Cheney, in an interview yesterday with CNBC’s “Capital Report,” said “the press has been irresponsible” in reporting on the commission’s findings, sometimes for “malicious” reasons. Referring to a New York Times front-page headline, “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie,”

    Damned irresponsible press, actually reporting on what the official sept 11 commission said. How dare they!

  85. 1. Krugman is a jerk.
    2. Krugman is a former advisor to ENRON.
    3. Krugman lets his partisan fantasies overwhelm any shred of understanding (which isn’t much) about economics he may have.
    4. Krugman is a broken record – repeating the same drivel in each column.
    5. NY Times – you are known by the company you keep.

  86. Well stated RockyRoad, Manfred, Hoser, kadaka (KD Knoebel), scarletmacaw and related others; well-stated and my sentiments too.

    I think it would behoove those that disagree to open up their perspective, put on a few more years toward maturity while pulling themselves out of the morass that is DKos, DU and even HuffPo and come to grips with actual ‘reality’ as it exists in the world … perhaps many of them will even have the ‘conversion’ experienced by David Horowitz, former Marxist and author of “Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

    .

  87. tallbloke says September 13, 2011 at 6:25 am

    “CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

    Lets bear in mind that ‘correlation and causality’ linkage thing …

    ‘Tall talk in the heat of the moment’ and that sort of thing too.

    .

  88. So the Iraq war, that was approved by Congress, is “illegal” according to many here. But the Libya war, which was NOT approved by Congress, is okay? You can disagree with the Iraq war but to call it illegal is illogical. Blame Saddam for lying before you blame Bush, if you don’t believe any WMDs were found, since Saddam wanted everyone to believe they had them. He did a good job of bluffing and got called for it.

    If you look at the Iraq war as a strategy, it actually made sense. Iraq had the infrastructure for moving troops and fighting real battles where Afghanistan was always going to be a prolonged guerrilla war. Pick your battleground to suit your strengths. Am I the only one that thinks that is smart war policy?

    Do you think the Iraqis are better off today than they were 10 years ago? Will their children be better off in another 10 years than they would have been?

    If the justification for bombing Libya was the “threat” of killing 10,000 citizens, why is the justification for stopping Saddam, who actually DID kill 100,000s citizens less reasonable?

  89. _Jim says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:06 am
    Lets bear in mind that ‘correlation and causality’ linkage thing …

    Maybe this would have been good advice for Rumsfeld to heed…

    ‘Tall talk in the heat of the moment’ and that sort of thing too.

    ‘Careless talk costs lives’, there’s another aphorism for you.

    White phosphorus on civilians in Fallujah… War Crimes…

  90. BJ says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:34 am
    Do you think the Iraqis are better off today than they were 10 years ago?

    Male or female Iraqis?

    why is the justification for stopping Saddam, who actually DID kill 100,000s citizens less reasonable?

    The death rate amongst the population was pretty much the same under Saddam 1993-2003 as it has been under the American invasion 2003-2009

    Women did have equal rights under Saddam though.

  91. Pull…

    Yes, Obama has to a great extent doubled-down on the ruinous Bush-Cheney policies. In that regard you are correct. The Iraq war in my view was a total waste of blood and treasure. But at the very, very least, if you’re going to have a war, pay for the damned thing. That unfunded war has done more to damage our country than anything else I can think of, short of the Civil War..

    Below is a list of examples of how our civil liberties are being taken away from us, first by B-C, and now by Obama, specifically by means of the Patriots Act. It’s sad, and telling, that you’re not even aware of this

    “Business and citizens groups can still have their records examined by the government with minimal checks on how the information can be used and more particularly used against. Individuals often based on flimsiest of evidence can still be targeted for monitoring and surveillance if suspected of being a potential terrorist.

    Organizations and individuals can still be slapped with so-called roving wiretaps (taps that can be placed on an individual or group anywhere, anytime) again based on weak evidence or unfounded suspicion….

    FISA can order court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason — even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist was also approved.

    Then there was the Administration’s radical interpretation and use of the “state secrets” privilege

    Obama is also now backing a bill that would require all Internet companies to be able to tap into any online communications that they enable.

    The Department Of Justice has been pressuring Congress to expand its power to obtain records of Americans’ private Internet activity through the use of National Security Letters (NSLs).

    Taken together it’s hard to come to any other conclusion except that with each administration the surveillance state expands, and the Executive Branch gains more power, if not over legislation, than assuredly over national security related polices, particularly those that endanger privacy.”

  92. tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:25 am

    Those are called contingency plans. Obviously we were caught off-guard. Nobody knew who was responsible for the attacks. There are books full of war plans. There might even be one for bombing London. It doesn’t mean it would ever happen. Rumsfeld wasn’t the one who made the decision to strike anyone. He knew he had to be ready when the Defense Department was asked to act.

  93. Pull,

    Re above, when I say above “done more to damage,” I am of course referring to self-inflicted damage.

  94. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Ты должен понять, что без США ты был бы или мёртвый, или работающий в советском лагере говорящий по-русски.

    Most of this post was lost in the ether. And that was lucky. However, this dude needed a response that should make the point crystal clear.

  95. Tallbloke, please site your statitics. Does the Iraq death rate prior to 2003 include political murders? Is it a number produced by the Iraqi gov’t? If so, it is about as trustworthy as anything climate “scientists” have published without providing the underlying data to back it up.

    PS – black children were more likely to have 2 parent families under slavery. So the definition of “better” must always be put into context.

  96. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:50 am
    Obviously we were caught off-guard. Nobody knew who was responsible for the attacks.

    It didn’t take the FBI long to find out that 15 of the terrorist pilots were being financed through flight school by the Saudis. They got their flight training from Rudi Dekkers who had special Immigration Office clearance to issue visas in Venice FL and five of them had previous training in U.S. military bases including ringleader Mohamed Atta.

  97. Tallbloke I’d be very interested in a link to that White phosphorus claim – if you please.
    As whenever I hear “Fallujah” all I see are those American civilians they captured, butchered on the spot, burned their bodies and hung them from bridges while the villages danced around with their children underneath the strung up bodies.

  98. tallbloke says September 13, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Maybe this would have been good advice for Rumsfeld to heed…

    We don’t EVEN have his exact words, only a ‘report’ from our illustrious ‘news’ media, Radical Son … on that basis there is nothing actionable (“hearsay evidence”) …

    .

  99. This is not censorship! This is voting via the wallet. The most effective political action that a individual can make, right up there with voting with your feet. Rumfeld’s subscription cancellation was incomplete as he should have demanded a refund, pro rata, of his remaining paid portion.

    Folks, voting in general elections is the least effective form of people power. How you spend your money dwarfs all other democratic tools. Democracy is not just about elections.GK

  100. Women did have equal rights under Saddam though.

    Are you serious?
    Yeah, equal right to be raped, tortured and killed in front of their families for saying one thing wrong or just because the wacko saddam said so – then yes, they were given equal rights to be slaughter along with Iraqi men – under saddam.
    Do you understand how many Kurdish brides his sons kidnapped on their wedding days? Raped, tortured and slaughtered one after another…for years this went on, one son like to torture them by slicking off their body parts as they were still alive…. he enjoyed this. Daddy saddam was only midly amused by his sick sons acts of depravity to women.
    Odd you think that’s equal rights….sickens me.

  101. tallbloke says September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

    It didn’t take the FBI long to find out that 15 of the terrorist pilots were being financed through flight school by the Saudis.

    20-20 hindsight always yields this kind of result (Duh!), Radical Son … this kind ‘navel gazing’ is fruitless, unless, of course, you have an agenda to promote.

    Ever read any of David Horowitz works? Are you familiar with his move from a far left, active, practicing Marxist?

    BTW, (not that you’ve read this far) the ‘words’ by Rumsfeld have other purposes, such as ‘consumption’ by ort enemy (or enemies?) at the time … are you by any chance good at strategy? Would you recognize the form and content of communications *to* the enemy if you saw it? Do you think maybe Rumsfeld accomplished the goal of getting a ‘message’ out?

    .

  102. Divide et impera! Rightwing/Leftwing is a false dichotomy and a distraction. People are so naive. This civilisation is going to fail spectacularly. Such a waste!

  103. tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

    So let’s compare the dates of the supposed Rumsfeld order and the FBI discovering the hijackers were trained in FL.

    tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:34 am

    I think you are dealing with a double-negative. Cheney very likely was angry about the press twisting a story for political purposes to help the Democratic Party, largely responsible for policy under Clinton that got us in trouble. Treating terrorism as a crime and not an act of war made the enemy much bolder. Cutting the lines of communication between FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., made “connecting the dots” much harder. That’s why we have the Dept. of Homeland Security today.

    When the press lies by saying you attacked Iraq because you think Saddam was connected with the 9/11 attacks, and the headline is “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie”. Now twist the truth and make Cheney’s anger about the Commission finding what the administration already knew. The invasion of Iraq was for other reasons. The fighting that happened after we got there was made more intense because it attracted Al Qaeda fighters. And that was a good thing, because we could kill them THERE and not have to do it HERE.

    tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:44 am

    White Phosphorus was not used against civilians. They were not targetted. Your attempt to equate the US military to terrorists is offensive.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1128-05.htm

    We took a lot of time and effort to allow civilians to leave Fallujah. The idea was to defeat Al Qaeda / Baathist resistance and minimize the cost in innocent lives. The First Battle of Fallujah ran into trouble because civilians were used as shields by the enemy to protect their fighters. We agree too many civilians were getting killed. US forces withdrew and surrounded the city. Civilians were given a lot of time to get out. The Second Battle of Fallujah took the city.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Fallujah

    Also, despite what the Bush administration said, it makes no sense to me to protect non-uniformed fighters under the Geneva Convention, who fight while blending into the non-combatant civilian population. They are unlawful combatants. The French Resistance fought the NAZIs in Paris wearing arm bands to identify themselves as legitimate fighters. They deserved protection under the Convention.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

    The US Supreme Court found the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to trials in US courts. It was a 5-4 decision that could easily have gone the other way. It was a stupid and impractical decision typical of the legalistic logic that is increasingly disconnected from reality. In US courts, secret evidence cannot be used to convict. The African embassy bomber was acquitted. Only a military trial would suffice in such cases. Then execution by firing squad the next day would be appropriate. ;->

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/18/nation/la-na-ghailani-verdict-20101118

  104. _Jim says:
    September 13, 2011 at 8:29 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

    It didn’t take the FBI long to find out that 15 of the terrorist pilots were being financed through flight school by the Saudis.

    20-20 hindsight always yields this kind of result (Duh!), Radical Son … this kind ‘navel gazing’ is fruitless, unless, of course, you have an agenda to promote.

    My only agenda is knowing the truth about the events. I’m wondering if the American people were getting value for money from the people they were paying $billions a year to protect them. It would be better if they had learned the lessons instead of denying and covering up the truths which they could have learned them from.

    Do you think maybe Rumsfeld accomplished the goal of getting a ‘message’ out?

    Considering these words didn’t get out until four years later, no. And looking at the conflict of interest Rumsfeld had in being involved with Haliburton while tenured in the Bush Administration, it would have been better if he’d chosen to be one thing rather than both.

  105. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 9:21 am
    When the press lies by saying you attacked Iraq because you think Saddam was connected with the 9/11 attacks, and the headline is “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie”. Now twist the truth and make Cheney’s anger about the Commission finding what the administration already knew.

    My recollection is that the Bush administration continually tried to associate the Ba’athist regime with 9-11, though they knew it wasn’t true. So yes, they already knew, but that didn’t stop them using 9-11 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq was for other reasons.

    Can’t disagree with that.

  106. Failed Enron adviser and failed economic adviser to the Obama administration? That Kruggers? THere are 10% of Americans who will believe anything he writes, you have to manage to stop caring about him.

  107. Why, exactly, did the hijackers try to buy a crop duster in Florida? Why was there a guy treated for anthrax burns in the hospital next to the airport where those hijackers trained?

    I would like to know, myself, but nobody appears interested.

    “My recollection is that the Bush administration continually tried to associate the Ba’athist regime with 9-11, ” – Tallbloke

    Do you have a link or a quote?

  108. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 9:21 am
    tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

    So let’s compare the dates of the supposed Rumsfeld order and the FBI discovering the hijackers were trained in FL.

    “9.11 Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg on Thursday excused the Commission’s decision to withhold from their Report any mention of the Army Able Danger intelligence unit in Tampa which was tracking Mohamed Atta and other members of his terrorist cadre during 1999 and 2000.

    Felzenberg cited the fact that the information provided to them by military officers in the unit did not agree with the FBI’s timeline concerning Atta’s arrival in the U.S.”

  109. Here is the URL to the full text of the congressional resolution to authorize the war in Iraq.

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm

    Here are some notable references to terrorism that show the connection between 9/11 and Iraq – namely that 9/11 showed us that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is a bad, bad thing. I do not think that link is unreasonable. I don’t see anywhere in here where it says “Saddam masterminded 9/11″ or “Saddam funded 9/11″, but I did a quick read so may have missed it. What I get from this is: Saddam has had WMDs in the past, has used WMDs in the past, has aided terrorists in the past, and has refused to obey all the UN resolutions to verify he will no longer have or use WMDs or supply them to terrorists, so we will no longer withhold the use of military force to disarm him and enforce the UN resolutions.

    From the text:

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

  110. It looks like a climate-unrelated purely-political topic is not a good idea to post on WUWT.

    Such off-topics serve no useful purpose, diminish stature, and give ammunition to critics.

    I think we should stick to objective reporting/discussion on Climate Science and Weather events — period.

  111. tim in vermont says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:05 am (Edit)
    Why, exactly, did the hijackers try to buy a crop duster in Florida?

    “ABC’s Brian Ross reported: “Johnelle Bryant is the USDA loan officer in Homestead, Florida, who Atta approached in May of 2000, long before al-Qaeda and bin Laden were household words.”

    Mr. Atta swung by in May, 2000, and Ms. Bryant remembers quite a bit about it.

    “At first,” she says, “he refused to speak with me,” on the grounds that she was, in his words, “but a female.”

    “I told him that if he was interested in getting a farm-service agency loan in my servicing area, then he would need to deal with me.”

    Ms. Bryant says the applicant was asking for $650,000 to start a crop-dusting business. His plan was to buy a six-seater twin-prop and then remove the seats. “He wanted to build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting.”

    Here’s the kicker, or rather, the smoking gun: Before Atta left her office he filled out a loan application.

    Loan applications are dated, aren’t they? That’s why Johnelle Bryant knows exactly when Atta was in her office. so, without even referencing any of the other numerous indicators of Atta’s presence in the U.S., one thing that can be said with absolute certainty:

    The FBI’s timeline, their chronology of events, the essential tool of any homicide investigation, is wrong.”

  112. Allen63 says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:18 am
    “It looks like a climate-unrelated purely-political topic is not a good idea to post on WUWT.
    Such off-topics serve no useful purpose, diminish stature, and give ammunition to critics. ”

    As if you would care, concern troll.

  113. tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:15 am
    ——————–
    The question was in reference to when Rumsfeld knew who was behind 9/11, since you used it in support of Krugman’s claim that 9/11 was used to attack Iraq.

    It was not unreasonable to immmediately suspect Iraq, and I doubt Rumsfeld knew otherwise only 5 hours after the attacks. Asking for plans to invade Iraq at that time was just due diligence, and does not support Krugman’s lie.

    CBS’s source said nothing about any other plans Rumsfeld might have requested, but he might very well have asked for plans to invade Afghanistan, Iran, and/or any and all other likely suspects in that same meeting.

    Also remember that CBS got caught red-handed putting forth a fraudulent document against Bush later that year. Very IPCC’esque of them.

  114. scarletmacaw says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:15 am
    ——————–
    The question was in reference to when Rumsfeld knew who was behind 9/11, since you used it in support of Krugman’s claim that 9/11 was used to attack Iraq.

    What I said was that “My recollection is that the Bush administration continually tried to associate the Ba’athist regime with 9-11, though they knew it wasn’t true.”

    That’s my memory, I’m not interested in ‘supporting Krugman’.

    This is of interest:

    http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=339&paper=1641

    I wonder if there is any truth in the last bit.

  115. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Ты должен понять, что без США ты был бы или мёртвый, или работающий в советском лагере говорящий по-русски.

    Hoser, your knowledge ’bout the times of the History you try to depict is close to zero.

    You have point in one issue only. If the local US commissar of victorious US Army in my town was Hoser, I’d decidedly would end up in a CIA hidden camp or interrogation center somewhere in Poland (as it happened to some Afghan fighters). And Russian language is real cool.

    BTW. I live in Poland. You should know the difference between Polish and Russian alphabet or checked it in Wikipedia for example. My name is not written Pshemyslav Dvidovitch Paveltchikov. And Archipelag Gulag was created in CCCP, not in Poland.

  116. >> tallbloke says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    What I said was that “My recollection is that the Bush administration continually tried to associate the Ba’athist regime with 9-11, though they knew it wasn’t true.”

    That’s my memory, I’m not interested in ‘supporting Krugman’. <<

    I am trying to ignore most of the arguments that don't deal with the Krugman statement, which is the topic of this thread, but I find it hard to just ignore statements I perceive to be wrong.

    I agree that there were claims of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. My recollection is that these were mostly brought up after the invasion. I think most were true (none were outlandish), but that's just a guess. If Bush was really interested in lying about things he could have simply arranged for WMDs to be found.

    In any case, linking SH and AQ is not what Krugman claimed, he claimed Iraq was justified by linking it to 9/11. Reading through the actual text of the resolution provided by BJ proves that this was not the case.

  117. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Apparently you don’t understand Russian. I’ll translate:
    You must understand, without the USA, you would either be dead, or working in a Soviet camp speaking Russian.

    No kidding, you aren’t Russian. I have respect for Russians and most Poles. My wife is Polish, I am half Czech. You would have lost your culture. That is my point. Forget your freedom. Forget being able to write here on this blog. Without us, winning the cold war, your life would be VERY different now.

  118. Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    That’s what withing the World is called American hubris. (and you’re deadly wrong with your claims). And do not lie and do not blind yourself . You have no respect not only to Russians and Poles, but to Afghans, Pakistanis, and Iraqis as well. Read your comments – you’ll know why.

  119. Tom_R says:
    September 13, 2011 at 3:34 pm (Edit)

    I agree that there were claims of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. My recollection is that these were mostly brought up after the invasion. I think most were true (none were outlandish), but that’s just a guess. If Bush was really interested in lying about things he could have simply arranged for WMDs to be found.

    In any case, linking SH and AQ is not what Krugman claimed, he claimed Iraq was justified by linking it to 9/11. Reading through the actual text of the resolution provided by BJ proves that this was not the case.

    The public doesn’t read official documents. The public goes on the perception they get from the media. The media at the time continually linked Saddam and 9-11. Thinking back, it was more a general meme which was supported by non-specific statements by Bush administration politicans.

    Look at the opinion poll percentages in the Boston Globe story linked. That perception came from somewhere.

  120. Please, read what the man has written: “What happened after 9/11 … was deeply shameful.”

    The 9/11 justification of the Iraq-war was a lie, your government used 9/11 to invade another country and kill way over 100.000 people – and that IS shameful.
    (Not to speak what happened to your own nation with PATRIOT act, DHS, and so on).

  121. Tallbloke – you do know that the Boston Globe is owned by the NYT, yes? I live in MA and can tell you they routinely ignore any data that doesn’t support their worldview. Hmmm … what does that remind me of…

    As for the general public not reading the text of resolutions, more average people read the Obamacare bill (myself included) than legislators did before they passed it so they could see what was in it. Which is why several hundred thousand middle-class folk marched on Washington on 9/12/2009 and why the 2010 midterm election was a bloodbath for Obama’s party. It appears that you assume everyone is like you and blindly trusts what you are told by the people who are selling you the bridge.

  122. Tony Mach – please share you nation of origin so we can also review your role in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya.

  123. Anthony,
    I admire your contribution to climate reportage, which basically as I see/saw it, is/was an effort to keep the politics out of Climate Science, as it is the politics which surrounds this which has led to the whole thisng being skewed. I do not beleive climate science should be calibrated upon a left/right spectrum – sceince is sceince.
    …so what is THIS doing here? Frankly exposing yourself as being a Neocon only makes me think about cancelling my ‘subscription’ to your views – and starts to undermine in my mind the very premise that this site in nonpolitical and unbiased. My advice – keep this off here.

    REPLY: Neocon? Whoa, uncalled for. Mr. Krugman took a big swipe at me in his column once, and I have no way to fight that sort of thing since they don’t allow rebuttals. Krugman did something that caused people to question his character and sensibility, and cancel their subsription. Since I’ll never get to rebut him in the NYT, the least I can do is point it out. If it were somebody else, it wouldn’t be here at all. Do a search on Krugman and you’ll find that WUWT has covered some of his climate rants several times before, so it isn’t like he is suddenly new to WUWT. – Anthony

  124. Thanks for your reply A – I follow this site regularly. I take back any insinuation as to your politics – this was meant in a spirit of helpfulness as I may not be the only one who may take this away from the above (which could be seen to side with rumsfeld over krugman on the issues discussed). One of your critiques of Krugman (as I recall) was very valid – that experts in one area should not presume to comment in areas outside of their expertise, (as i recall you mockingly nomered him ‘climate expert paul krugman’). Be wary not to be seen not stray into this trap yourself – the best way to fight him may be to ignore him.

  125. BJ says:
    September 14, 2011 at 7:57 am

    As for the general public not reading the text of resolutions, more average people read the Obamacare bill (myself included) than legislators did before they passed it so they could see what was in it. Which is why several hundred thousand middle-class folk marched on Washington on 9/12/2009 and why the 2010 midterm election was a bloodbath for Obama’s party. It appears that you assume everyone is like you and blindly trusts what you are told by the people who are selling you the bridge.

    As one of the several hundred thousand people who marched on London to protest against the proposed invasion of Iraq my own government was complicit with I can be sure you’re wrong.

    But we are not talking about the politically literate and active here. We are talking about the majority swayed by biased media on both sides. The people frightened into paying for the foreign adventures of the oil buccaneers and the purveyors of the weapons and logistics by a heinous crime and the lies which followed it.

  126. >> tallbloke says:
    September 14, 2011 at 1:44 am

    The public doesn’t read official documents. The public goes on the perception they get from the media. The media at the time continually linked Saddam and 9-11. <<

    I don't think it was either the media either. Most media here are controlled by the anti war left. I suspect it was just natural for the people who didn't delve into the matter to link the evil Muslim American-hating Arab Osama Bin Laden with the evil Muslim American-hating Arab Saddam Hussein.

    In any case, it's not the general public who voted for the war resolution, and, in spite of what BJ thinks about the political class, the resolution was short enough that most of them probably did read it, or at least have some aid explain it to them.

    BTW, I'm also 'scarletmacaw' I didn't catch where my screen name defaulted to a name I used on a different WordPress blog until after I started posting here. I'll have to watch out for that in the future.

  127. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Hoser says:
    September 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    That’s what withing the World is called American hubris. (and you’re deadly wrong with your claims). And do not lie and do not blind yourself . You have no respect not only to Russians and Poles, but to Afghans, Pakistanis, and Iraqis as well. Read your comments – you’ll know why.

    So Przemyslaw, you’re saying Poland won World War 2? Or are you saying the Russians won that war? Perhaps you give England the credit, or the French, or perhaps the Czechs?

    I say you’ve been reading the wrong “history” books. And call it “American hubris” is you wish–I have a different view, obviously–not because Poland or any other country didn’t try their darndest to throw off Nazi occupation, but because Hitler miscalculated by not taking seriously the reports his spies sent him on the resources in America that would be brought to bear on the war effort if the US were to no longer remain neutral in the conflict.

    So the bottom line is I’m glad you have the freedoms you do. I’m glad you’re not speaking German. But personally having relatives that didn’t come home from WW2, and were killed in countries that they had not previously visited and were located an ocean away indicates the US was there to help. It sounds like you don’t appreciate the help and maybe next time there won’t be any. That would be my decision based on your attitude. I say, let the Russian Bear gobble you up.

  128. Tom_R says:
    September 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    I suspect it was just natural for the people who didn’t delve into the matter to link the evil Muslim American-hating Arab Osama Bin Laden with the evil Muslim American-hating Arab Saddam Hussein.

    The problem with that is that Saddam wasn’t very religious and ran the country on non-religious law codes. Which is why women had a generally better deal then than now. From the average Iraqi’s point of view, Saddam was a bad dictator, but at least he was *their* bad dictator, and he kept the fundamentalists in their place.

    So where did the American public get the idea Saddam was a muslim extremist? Probably from people like Dick Cheney mouthing unsubstantiated crap about 9-11 terrorist pilot Mohamed Atta allegedly meeting an Iraqi military high-up in Prague. If he did it was more likely concerning a private heroin running deal than Saddam sanctioned terrorist plots. The story put out by the administration that the 9-11 terror pilot cadre were muslim fundamentalists is demonstrably false anyway. They were hard drinking, strip club frequenting narco-criminals.

    How Bin Laden forced them to commit suicide on 9-11 is another story.

  129. From tallbloke on September 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm:

    So where did the American public get the idea Saddam was a muslim extremist?

    That’s something I’d like to know too, or more specifically how you got to thinking that was the idea. My perception as one of the American public, shared by coworkers and others I knew, match Tom_R’s comment as I read it (seemingly opposed to your take). OBL and Saddam had a mutual hatred of the US, the situation was “the enemy of my enemy is… at least a possible associate.” We were well aware Saddam was no Muslim extremist. A brutal oppressive power-hungry dictator with a long history of slaughtering his own people whom the world and civilization would not miss and be better off without, which should have been done back during the first Gulf War, but not an extremist. Actually, concerning Saddam, “Muslim” was rarely more than a footnote.

    And what I’ve heard of the 9/11 group is the strip club and drinking stuff was a “..for tomorrow we die!” night-before blowout, not a habitual thing. It made wonderful cover for assorted US Muslim groups, who were loudly proclaiming “See, they weren’t real Muslims like us, we’re vindicated!” If you want to substantiate they were die-hard Muslim party animals, better cough up some good links.

Comments are closed.