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/
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.
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
.
Lets bear in mind that ‘correlation and causality’ linkage thing …
‘Tall talk in the heat of the moment’ and that sort of thing too.
.
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?
_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…
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.
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.”
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.
Pull,
Re above, when I say above “done more to damage,” I am of course referring to self-inflicted damage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”) …
.
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
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.
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?
.
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!
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
_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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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;