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/
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.
Eventual links between Saddam and Al Qaeda came at time Clinton administration:
An example from 1999:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger
The old enemy of my enemy is my friend…
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.”
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.
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.
Krugman is just an ignorant person.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
People still pay for news?
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.
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.
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).
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZk_E2_q2x4
To which we might add >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k
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.
Tony Mach – please share you nation of origin so we can also review your role in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya.
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
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.
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.
>> 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.
Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
September 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm
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.
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.
From tallbloke on September 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm:
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.