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

#51
#51
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.

by the time we went to Iraq, his approval numbers were down and we were two years removed from 9/11.

If all of you liberals around here are so sold on his motive as a "NeoCon", then why in the hell do assume that he and Cheney were going to give up that ghost? It makes no sense whatsoever to assume we weren't going somewhere, if you're right about his motives. So, either you're dead wrong about motive or you're dead wrong about the domino theory you've used to get us to Iraq. Take your pick.
 
#52
#52
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.
so, you're removing the element of killing people from forcible regime change? Does that make any sense at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
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.

Alone? I thought there were many politicians who supported these initiatives. Could throw just about every Federal politician at that time into Krugman's assessment at some level.

Timing was the issue here, IMO. Especially considering he presented nothing new that had not already been hashed out over the last 10 years. He knew what he was doing and is guilty of similar behavior as that which he seeks to criticize.
 
#55
#55
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.

Nope. Just trying to figure out how far out there you are in regards to Bush and warmongering. I've seen worse.
 
#56
#56
by the time we went to Iraq, his approval numbers were down and we were two years removed from 9/11.

If all of you liberals around here are so sold on his motive as a "NeoCon", then why in the hell do assume that he and Cheney were going to give up that ghost? It makes no sense whatsoever to assume we weren't going somewhere, if you're right about his motives. So, either you're dead wrong about motive or you're dead wrong about the domino theory you've used to get us to Iraq. Take your pick.

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely wrong. Just because he had motives all along, doesn't mean it is a given he could carry them out. Really?

I'm right about the motive, and I'm right about the domino theory used to carry it out. Do you really believe either:

A. Bush had no intentions with Iraq until after 9/11

or

B. He had intentions with Iraq prior to 9/11, but 9/11 had no part in selling to the public going to war.

??
 
#59
#59
So was getting rid of Saddam a bad thing? Doesnt seem like it. You cant say that the Iraq war was a failure or a defeat. You can say that the "Arab Spring" is a direct result of overthrowing Saddam because the people of the ME realized that their dictators were not invincible

In Iraq, a new breed of returning exile - The Washington Post

On a blistering day in the middle of the Iraqi summer, Najmaldin Karim, the provincial governor of Kirkuk, climbed in his armored car and went down to Republic Street, a small strip of fruit stands and shops in the heart of this dusty oil town north of Baghdad.

Give Kirkuk time, Karim says, and Republic Street will return to the way he remembers it as a boy: an oasis of tearooms and movie theaters where the melting pot of local ethnic groups mixed with ease.

A little over a year ago, Karim, 62, was a neurosurgeon with a thriving practice in suburban Washington, living with his wife in an expansive brick house in Silver Spring.

After 35 years in the United States, Karim, an American citizen, decided to return to Iraq after he saw that American forces and an entrenched local bureaucracy were making scant progress toward reconstruction. Unlike other Americans who rushed to help in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early days of combat, Karim is a new breed of returning exile who won the support of his countrymen on his own, without the support of the U.S. military — something that’s seen here as a plus. He has come back to right the shambles of his home town at a time when Kirkuk’s future is as clouded with uncertainty as Iraq itself.
 
#60
#60
No, I am removing the element of killing people as a motive, as was absurdly stated before.

And I am injecting it as part of the equation because that is on the table when you go to war. That is what is required to reach the agenda you say he had. You can call it absurd all you want.
 
#61
#61
No, I am removing the element of killing people as a motive, as was absurdly stated before.

how is it absurd to intertwine the two, when Bush has clearly said on more than one occasion that he knows the consequences of using force? The decision to forcibly remove is absolutely the decision to kill individuals, on both sides.
 
#62
#62
And I am injecting it as part of the equation because that is on the table when you go to war. That is what is required to reach the agenda you say he had. You can call it absurd all you want.

He said he was removing killing people as a motive...and you're injecting it? Wouldn't that make Bush a psychopath?
 
#63
#63
Krugman is a turd of the first order, and the tone and timing of the article is tasteless.

But that doesn't make what is said wrong.

I personally believe there were legitimate reasons for going into Iraq, and Saddam needed to be taken out IMO. But saying Bush had no intentions from the beginning and didn't use the terrorism card post 9/11 to make his case is to completely ignore history.
 
#64
#64
I'm sorry, but that is absolutely wrong. Just because he had motives all along, doesn't mean it is a given he could carry them out. Really?

I'm right about the motive, and I'm right about the domino theory used to carry it out. Do you really believe either:

A. Bush had no intentions with Iraq until after 9/11

or

B. He had intentions with Iraq prior to 9/11, but 9/11 had no part in selling to the public going to war.

??
Hold up, the argument is that the NeoCons trumped up this entire Iraq thing and that 9/11's perpetrators had nothing to do with Iraq? Now they're lumped together?

I think Bush had no intentions in Iraq until the intel told him he needed to have intentions in Iraq. Once he did, he was going to Iraq via UN mandate, regardless of what happened on 9/11. He knew they had WMD, and was likely right, and wasn't going to let Hussein thumb his nose at the world by essentially bragging about them.
 
#65
#65
Krugman is a turd of the first order, and the tone and timing of the article is tasteless.

But that doesn't make what is said wrong.

I personally believe there were legitimate reasons for going into Iraq, and Saddam needed to be taken out IMO. But saying Bush had no intentions from the beginning and didn't use the terrorism card post 9/11 to make his case is to completely ignore history.

Who said it was wrong? The timing and the message are hypocritical and tell us something about the man.
 
#66
#66
Krugman is a turd of the first order, and the tone and timing of the article is tasteless.

But that doesn't make what is said wrong.

I personally believe there were legitimate reasons for going into Iraq, and Saddam needed to be taken out IMO. But saying Bush had no intentions from the beginning and didn't use the terrorism card post 9/11 to make his case is to completely ignore history.

It is wrong because it is basically a minor observation. Hmmm, people in power making decisions and using current circumstances to push their agenda? No way.

The list of people who were "advantaged" some how by 9/11 is a mile long. It's true for every major circumstance.

Choosing to cherry pick the ones you hate and use a day a memorial to trash them is wrong anyway you slice it.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Krugman himself is taking advantage of the situation to promote his agenda.
 
#67
#67
how is it absurd to intertwine the two, when Bush has clearly said on more than one occasion that he knows the consequences of using force? The decision to forcibly remove is absolutely the decision to kill individuals, on both sides.

But "to kill individuals" wasn't a motive, it was a consequence. In fact, every effort is made to save people, given the circumstances.

Calling "killing people" a motive is what is absurd.
 
#68
#68
Who said it was wrong? The timing and the message are hypocritical and tell us something about the man.

You did....


The implication that all of their actions in response were motivated by politics is utter horseshat and you and Krugman both know it. So yes, what he said is absolutely untrue at its base. He's using the occasion to bring more readers to a shoddy, worthless blog which was Ted Rall quality pathetic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
It is wrong because it is basically a minor observation. Hmmm, people in power making decisions and using current circumstances to push their agenda? No way.

The list of people who were "advantaged" some how by 9/11 is a mile long. It's true for every major circumstance.

Choosing to cherry pick the ones you hate and use a day a memorial to trash them is wrong anyway you slice it.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Krugman himself is taking advantage of the situation to promote his agenda.

When one is the president, it takes on a new meaning.

Do you think it is unfair for Obama to be pointed out for using the economic crisis to pass a garbage stimulus bill? Afterall, there is a list a mile long of people who benefited, right?
 
#70
#70
So he wanted the opportunity to go to war with 2 different countries, but didn't necessarily want 9/11 to be the opportunity.

Why don't you just make the point you're trying to make without wasting my time trying to trap in some battle of semantics.
 
#71
#71
Why don't you just make the point you're trying to make without wasting my time trying to trap in some battle of semantics.

No trap. Just tryin to clear up where you stand.

Im wasting all kinds of time. Im on a message board talking politics.:)
 
#72
#72
So was getting rid of Saddam a bad thing? Doesnt seem like it. You cant say that the Iraq war was a failure or a defeat. You can say that the "Arab Spring" is a direct result of overthrowing Saddam because the people of the ME realized that their dictators were not invincible

Yeah I can. IMO, we didn't get our money's worth. What is it? $0.5 trillion and counting? How many lives? What do we have to show for it?
 
#73
#73
You did....

I think his take in this instance was political grandstanding and his bullshiz about their motives is utter crap. I'm not saying he's wrong for voicing his opinion or for having that opinion. He's absolutely a disingenuous piece of garbage, just like most of the political commentators around him. At one point, he was probably above their sorriness, but has thrown himself in with that lot at this point.

Again, he wouldn't know leadership if it was shoved in his earhole, which is why he has no idea what Bush or Giuliani was faced with in light of the attacks.
 
#74
#74
But "to kill individuals" wasn't a motive, it was a consequence. In fact, every effort is made to save people, given the circumstances.

Calling "killing people" a motive is what is absurd.

And acting like Bush swept that under the rug in the name of removing Saddam is silly.

I don't buy he took that consequence as lightly as you think he did.
 
#75
#75
But "to kill individuals" wasn't a motive, it was a consequence. In fact, every effort is made to save people, given the circumstances.

Calling "killing people" a motive is what is absurd.

Killing individuals was an inescapable consequence and removing it from the analysis makes the decision easier. Bush made it clear that he never removed it from his decision making process, which is as it should be.

Call it what you like, but it's part and parcel to the decision. Going to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but death in spades was a part of the deal.
 

VN Store



Back
Top