How About Krugman's Words for 9/11/11?

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
the big deal to me is that he tries to lean on his credentials to make himself more than just a political pundit, yet he's the worst of all of them.

I think it's absurd to assume any motives at all for Bush or Giuliani in the aftermath of the horror. I think, as Bam said, that they simply stepped up to lead in the circumstances thrust upon them and they did it well. Both galvanized the spirit of their constituents.

Krugman chose the memorial of 3,000 dead Americans to make his point. At best he couldn't have known motives, per you, and he should be embarrassed to be so hypocritical in his guess. At worst, he's a worse version of Olbermann.

I don't give a shat if he makes controversial points. In fact, he has to because that's what he has reduced himself to. I just find it pathetic that he used the events of 9/11's 10th anniversary to venture his guess.
Click to expand...

Maybe he felt the best way to honor them is to fight to ensure tragedies like these aren't used by political opportunists in the future.

It's not that much of a stretch. 9/11 created great political opportunity for both Bush and Giuliani. They "used" it whether or not their motives were angelic or devilish.
 
#27
#27
nbakerld said:
Maybe he felt the best way to honor them is to fight to ensure tragedies like these aren't used by political opportunists in the future.

It's not that much of a stretch. 9/11 created great political opportunity for both Bush and Giuliani. They "used" it whether or not their motives were angelic or devilish.
Click to expand...

He was so worried about them they didn't even get mentioned.
Pot/Kettle situation, he took the focus off where it should have been whether you agree with him or not.
 
#28
#28
VOLatile said:
Not really. I don't even know why comments are allowed anyways. I've never read an intelligent conversation in the comments of any article, be it on Fox, CNN, or NYT. The moderation on the comments for the op-ed would be quite the feat.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Kind of like the unintelligent comment about the piece you are making now. You realize your posting is essential the same as someone posting below his article.good point, btw.
 
#29
#29
The problem I have with his comments is that Bush and Rudy were supposed to to be leaders because thats their job during a time of crisis. Being a leader of heroes by default makes you a hero also.

He is just upset that his party cant/couldnt unite the country at a time of crisis like a Bush or Rudy could
 
#30
#30
I think people united themselves (naturally might be a better word). 9/11 was very different than the economic crisis. Also, that was practically right out of the gate for Bush's presidency. I have no doubt that a democrat could have done the same thing.
 
#31
#31
BeecherVol said:
He was so worried about them they didn't even get mentioned.
Pot/Kettle situation, he took the focus off where it should have been whether you agree with him or not.
Click to expand...

Kind of. He took 9/11/11 as an opportunity to write an Op-Ed. Bush took 9/11/01 as an opportunity to wage 2 wars, pass the PATRIOT Act, establish the Department of Homeland Security, etc.

They're not really on the same level.
 
#32
#32
nbakerld said:
Kind of. He took 9/11/11 as an opportunity to write an Op-Ed. Bush took 9/11/01 as an opportunity to wage 2 wars, pass the PATRIOT Act, establish the Department of Homeland Security, etc.

They're not really on the same level.
Click to expand...

might as well take it to the absurd. He also passed a prescription medication plan.
 
#33
#33
Weezy said:
I think people united themselves (naturally might be a better word). 9/11 was very different than the economic crisis. Also, that was practically right out of the gate for Bush's presidency. I have no doubt that a democrat could have done the same thing.
Click to expand...

Puff puff pass bro... Al Gore just doesnt have the leadership ability like a Bush or Rudy have
 
#34
#34
nbakerld said:
Kind of. He took 9/11/11 as an opportunity to write an Op-Ed. Bush took 9/11/01 as an opportunity to wage 2 wars, pass the PATRIOT Act, establish the Department of Homeland Security, etc.

They're not really on the same level.
Click to expand...

Trying to figure out how much weight to put into "opportunity".

Do you fall into the 9/11 conspiracy crowd?
Bush didn't have a reason to invade the middle east so he created one with Cheney to kill and pillage oil?
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
BigPapaVol said:
might as well take it to the absurd. He also passed a prescription medication plan.
Click to expand...

Why take it to the absurd? Are you insinuating it was leaning towards absurdity? I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but if 9/11 doesn't happen, Bush II doesn't end up with 2 wars, a PATRIOT Act, and a Department of Homeland Security. Maybe you think that's an absurd notion.
 
#36
#36
The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue
Click to expand...

ironic statement is ironic.

dude took a unifying memorial and made it a wedge issue. Bravo
 
#37
#37
BeecherVol said:
Trying to figure out how much weight to put into "opportunity".

Do you fall into the 9/11 conspiracy crowd?
Bush didn't have a reason to invade the middle east so he created one with Chaney to kill and pillage oil?
Click to expand...

No.

I don't understand why we go to Iraq. Afghanistan makes sense (being there 10 years later doesn't, but it did initially). Iraq does not. The book One Percent Doctrine illustrates the lengths Bush II and Cheney went to to tie 9/11 to Iraq. You'd be surprised.

I don't think anybody can read Blowback and War Made Easy without changing their minds some about our wreckless foreign policy. I supported both wars, initially....then I started reading.
 
#38
#38
nbakerld said:
Why take it to the absurd? Are you insinuating it was leaning towards absurdity? I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but if 9/11 doesn't happen, Bush II doesn't end up with 2 wars, a PATRIOT Act, and a Department of Homeland Security. Maybe you think that's an absurd notion.
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely.

It's absurd to think any of those happen without 9-11. The silliness about the prescription medication bill has nothing to do with 9-11.
 
#39
#39
nbakerld said:
No.

I don't understand why we go to Iraq. Afghanistan makes sense (being there 10 years later doesn't, but it did initially). Iraq does not. The book One Percent Doctrine illustrates the lengths Bush II and Cheney went to to tie 9/11 to Iraq. You'd be surprised.

I don't think anybody can read Blowback and War Made Easy without changing their minds some about our wreckless foreign policy. I supported both wars, initially....then I started reading.
Click to expand...

The one percent doctrine should be required reading for anybody wanting to know how the whole Iraq decision was made, as well as what Cheney was really doing behind the scenes.
 
#40
#40
nbakerld said:
No.

I don't understand why we go to Iraq. Afghanistan makes sense (being there 10 years later doesn't, but it did initially). Iraq does not. The book One Percent Doctrine illustrates the lengths Bush II and Cheney went to to tie 9/11 to Iraq. You'd be surprised.

I don't think anybody can read Blowback and War Made Easy without changing their minds some about our wreckless foreign policy. I supported both wars, initially....then I started reading.
Click to expand...

Do you think Bush was happy to get the "opportunity" that 9/11 presented to take life in Afghanistan and Iraq?
 
#41
#41
BeecherVol said:
Do you think Bush was happy to get the "opportunity" that 9/11 presented to take life in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Click to expand...

Absolutely when it came to Iraq. And I like had you framed it as "taking life" instead of regime change, which is what it was really about. Unless Bob Woodward and Ron Suskinds books were complete works of fiction, Bush had Iraq on his agenda from before his innaguration and no way was he going to let 9/11 slip by using it as political capital to justify his agenda. "Lucky" is a better word than "happy".
 
#42
#42
It's absurd to consider Krugman's rant anything more than a rant. Iraq is controversial? Who knew?

The line I quoted from the article says it all - he's *****ing because what was supposed to be a unifying event has been used ideologically; and he does so directly in his little foot stomping episode.

His targets are only the people he disagrees with ideologically and he ignores the meaning of the anniversary for virtually all the country so he can take shot #1,879,697 at his opponents.

It's completely tasteless.
 
#43
#43
rjd970 said:
This. Absolutely.

It's absurd to think any of those happen without 9-11. The silliness about the prescription medication bill has nothing to do with 9-11.
Click to expand...
Pretending we would have avoided Iraq is delusional.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
BeecherVol said:
Do you think Bush was happy to get the "opportunity" that 9/11 presented to take life in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Click to expand...

Was he happy about 9/11? No. And honestly, I think Bush II, deep down, has the best of intentions. I just don't like his methods for bringing about what he sees as the greater good. Was he happy about his opportunity to bring about what he sees as the greater good? Probably.
 
#45
#45
rjd970 said:
Absolutely when it came to Iraq. And I like had you framed it as "taking life" instead of regime change, which is what it was really about. Unless Bob Woodward and Ron Suskinds books were complete works of fiction, Bush had Iraq on his agenda from before his innaguration and no way was he going to let 9/11 slip by using it as political capital to justify his agenda. "Lucky" is a better word than "happy".
Click to expand...

No. Im talking about just killing people. Thats what happens when bullets and bombs fly. Regime change doesnt happen without people dying in most cases.

"Lucky"?
Lets go ahead and clear the air here.

Bush did not mind 9/11(and what happened) because it gave him the chance to kill people in Afgstan and Iraq?
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
We HAD to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We fought them in Iraq and Afghanistan and have pretty much beat them 10 years later. If we don't fight them in the ME then we are fighting them on US soil.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
Pretending we would have avoided Iraq is delusional.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No way in the pit of hades does it get sold to the public simply on the grounds regime change and blowing off UN inspectors. Post 9/11 nobody was going to ask the hard questions when it came to WMDs. All that needed to be said was Saddam, Terrorist, WMD, mushroom cloud over NYC...and the press was all too willing to give live coverage of the fireworks display over Baghdad. The whole Valerie Plame thing was almost comical. Not to mention we have a DHS and TSA that can't protect shat right now. And how in the hell does Bush sell something like the Patriot Act to his conservative politcal base without 9/11?

None of this, maybe even Iraq, happens without a unifying event like 9/11 to give the president approval numbers in the 80s.
 
#48
#48
nbakerld said:
Was he happy about 9/11? No. And honestly, I think Bush II, deep down, has the best of intentions. I just don't like his methods for bringing about what he sees as the greater good. Was he happy about his opportunity to bring about what he sees as the greater good? Probably.
Click to expand...

So he wanted the opportunity to go to war with 2 different countries, but didn't necessarily want 9/11 to be the opportunity.
 
#49
#49
I can't really swallow our populace going into Iraq without first experiencing 9/11. I could be wrong.
 
#50
#50
BeecherVol said:
No. Im talking about just killing people. Thats what happens when bullets and bombs fly. Regime change does happen without people dying in most cases.

"Lucky"?
Lets go ahead and clear the air here.

Bush did not mind 9/11(and what happened) because it gave him the chance to kill people in Afgstan and Iraq?
Click to expand...

Straw man alert....who is saying Bush wanted to kill people, not me, you are putting those words in my mouth.

Bush wanted regime change. If people have to die, so be it. Saddam was given an ultimatum and chance to leave, and as a rule we limit all collateral damage as much as possible if hostilities are necessary. He didn't "want to kill people" just because. That is nonsense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top