Paul " Punky " Krugman / 9-11 editorial

[RobDownSouth]

All of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq are contained in the Joint War Resolution, try reading it sometime and adjust your bullshit accordingly.

ah yes, you're still enamored of those fictional WMDs that were used as a pretext for war.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I do not hate those who disagree with me on principle.

The fact that you couldn't or wouldn't respond to my personal challenge to you way back in post #6 of this thread makes a mockery of this claim.

You couldn't articulate a counter-argument to Krugman's editorial, so you responded with a personal attack on him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hahahaha, remember, "Irony is a clear consciousness of an eternal agility, of the infinitely abundant chaos." And I can think of few who've created more chaos around here than you and the RogueDownSouth.

Took you long enough!

Googled "Irony" and this is the best you could come up with?

Weak.

 

[Karen Kraft]

[personal info prohibited per our forum guidelines]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, the fact is the purpose of his article is to advance his own hatred, and falsely attack the character of two good men, trying very hard to do their duty and live up to the expectations of the American people during a time of great national crisis. That makes him guilty of both.

Explain what you consider to be "hatred".

Explain what you consider to be "false attacks".

I see nothing in the editorial of either your claims.

Edited to add: On August 6, 2001, President George W. Bush dismissed a briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack America" with the infamous words "Okay, your ass is covered".

Is this an example of "trying very hard to do their duty"?
Is the mere fact I bring this up an example of my "hatred"? Is this a "false attack" by me? Hmmmmm?

 

[cjh]

Hahahaha, remember, "Irony is a clear consciousness of an eternal agility, of the infinitely abundant chaos." And I can think of few who've created more chaos around here than you and the RogueDownSouth.

this is why you'll never have the gravitas of col. hogan.

sonny contains chaos.

sonny, though left of center, presents arguments rationally, acknowledges weaknesses in the positions he takes, moves to the right of center from time to time, and--for this board--maintains a civil tone.

hogan does that, too, to the right of center.

you disagree with his position, you paint it in a demagogic accusation.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Karen Kraft]

Makes my point. The difference between you and me is, I quoted it.

With no tickey, no can pick up washy or irony.

-Won Hong Lo

 

[unregistered]

 

[Powertone]

You couldn't articulate a counter-argument to Krugman's editorial, so you responded with a personal attack on him.

never mind Krugman turned OFF the comments so he wouldn't be able to see the vitriol he so richly deserved for such a crass op/ed .

write Paul , Rob , to tell him you defended him here valiantly and would like an autographed picture in return for your trouble .

 

[RobDownSouth]

never mind Krugman turned OFF the comments so he wouldn't be able to see the vitriol he so richly deserved for such a crass op/ed .

write Paul , Rob , to tell him you defended him here valiantly and would like an autographed picture in return for your trouble .

So turning off comments negates his editorial?

I'm not buying that.

Maybe you'll take the challenge I made to Vetty....do you think Krugman's editorial contained "hatred" and/or "false attacks"?

Vetty chose not to respond. Are you up to the challenge?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Powertone]

So turning off comments negates his editorial?

I'm not buying that.

Maybe you'll take the challenge I made to Vetty....do you think Krugman's editorial contained "hatred" and/or "false attacks"?

Vetty chose not to respond. Are you up to the challenge?

his piece drips with venomous contempt . how that eludes you is beyond my grasp .

turning off comments means he's a pompous ass who views himself as being above reproach for his far left opinion ( s ) ...oh and it reveals he's a massive pussy hiding behind the Old Gray Lady.

 

[Wrong Element]

...that started with Clinton who did nothing to kill bin Laden...he had 800M in jets to sell to the UAE after all

Er, aren't you one of the guys always saying how wrong it is to "blame Bush?" And here you are doing the same thing about Bush's predecessor.

No one here will take me up on this, but look back a few years and you'll see that Krugman has been right about almost everything.

And in a sane country, Bush wouldn't have been able to claim one of the biggest national security failures in American history as his greatest triumph, and "America's Mayor" (groan) wouldn't have been able to escape blame for the incompetence that led to the deaths of hundreds of firefighters.

 

[Wrong Element]

Whether of not Clinton should have got Bin laden at the time is easy to decide in hindsight.

When you look at the reaction to Obama and Libya--hell, the reaction to Clinton and Kosovo--you get a pretty fair idea of how the right would have responded to an all-out effort to get Osama from a Democratic president. Without a 9/11, the political will for such a task would never have existed. And even afterwards, Bush only devoted 2 serious months to Osama before his attention was diverted by the bright shiny object in Baghdad.

And as much as I disagreed with Bush, how did they profit from it? Was it the books or something?

When you look at how close the 2004 election proved to be, it's pretty hard to believe Bush could have been re-elected without the halo effect of being a wartime president (no president in American history has ever been voted out in the middle of a war).

Of course, Bush probably would not be regarded as one of the 5 worst presidents of all time without the abject disaster of his second term. So there's that.

 

[Sam1]

"So, show me who owns more land than the federal government. That is what being the majority landowner means. Total percentage of land? Really?"

That the federal government is the largest land owner does not mean that they own over 50% of the land in the country, in other words a majority of the land. A better statement would have been that the majority of the land in the United States is held in private ownership. I belive that both state and federal ownership accounts for less then 50% of the land so government ownes a minority of the land in the United States.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The hatred I see is Krugman's motive for advancing his scurrilous lies, namely that Bush and Giuliani are fake heroes, and, "George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror." Despicable, but typical of the hate for Bush we find in the "Liberal Conscience."

He also advances the falsehood that we went to war in Iraq because Neo-cons wanted to, "for all the wrong reasons," when the truth of it is the majority of the American people backed the idea, and the Congress assembled both authorized it and detailed all of the reasons for doing so in the Joint War Resolution.

The attack was hateful and un-American. We know this is true when we note the length Krugman went to in order to insulate himself from outraged Americans who would certainly take no time in pointing it out.

Interesting. You consider Krugman's charges that Bush and Guiliani are "fake heroes" to be scurrilous lies. Does this mean you consider those two to be "real heroes" then?

Many people recall Guiliani's shameless post-9/11 posturing. It got so bad it merited a parody on Saturday Night Live. And let's not forget that once he left the mayor's office, Guiliani set up a firm (Giuliani and Bracewell) specifically designed to help firms profit from a post-9/11 mindset. His shameless crass exploitation of 9/11 was a major reason he did so poorly in Republican presidential polls in 2008. Even Republicans couldn't stomach his exploitation.

Many people, myself included, despise Bush for manipulating data to make it seem as if Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The clues were there that Hussein never did, but Bush exploited America's fear to push his own agenda in Iraq. To me, that doesn't fall under the classification of "real hero", but then you've always amused us with your unique definitions of words.

Your assertion that America (and Congress) back the war resolution is technically true but also irrelevant. Many people, Congress included, did not believe that the Bush administration would stoop so low as to manipulate data in order to send us to war. Most Americans are sadder but wiser now.

As a lifelong Republican, I can see how Krugman's essay would make you angry...but he's simply pointing out that Republicans failed miserably to keep America safe.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

his piece drips with venomous contempt . how that eludes you is beyond my grasp .

How else would one regard someone that got hundreds of thousands killed for profit?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Many people look at Bush and Guiliani as true heroes during the crisis.

Anything Republican get's a spot on SNL, big deal. It's no surprise that "many people" of your persuasion have it in for both Bush and Guiliani.

That "manipulating" is another false charge made by the left. You cannot prove Bush manipulated or falsified data to make it look like WMD were in existence in Iraq. Truth is, they were in Irag. The fact that he used them on his own people is well documented. This was the belief of almost every intelligence organization in the free world, and was reported by UN inspectors.

Both wars were duly authorized by the Congress assembled, WMDs were only one reason of many listed in the resolution justifying the invasion of Iraq....and you know it.

As a lifelong Democrat, I can see why the Krugman editorial massages your prejudices against the two Republicans, and if he was trying to point out how Bush failed to protect America, he really should have pulled his head out of his ass first.

I "cannot prove" that Bush PERSONALLY manipulated data to "prove" that WMDs were in Iraq, but I can prove that the Bush Administration manipulated data. Google "Bush +stovepipe +OSP" and you'll find there was a brand spankin' new political entity called the OSP that deliberately manipulated DoD and CIA estimates to fit their preconceived political positions.

HERE is a good primer on the subject.

And while were at it, let's not forget that the approved presidential narrative for invadin' Iraq was declassified for the entire Congress....except for dissenting opinions, which were shuttled off to "Annexes" and "Addendums" and remained classified.

In my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of other Americans, Bush and Guiliani are "false heroes". Your opinion may differ. It doesn't mean my opinion has any more merit than yours and vice versa.

 

[cjh]

I don't pursue Hogan's level of gravitas, though I do admire the scholarship he brings to the argument, damned commendable. It's how and why he slaps you lefties around like children all day long, and in such agonizing detail. I really feel for you poor bastards, I really do; however I've never been one to mutilate the dead.

BTW CJ, you're a major leaguer when it comes to playing the game you accuse me off. I really have to smile at the audaciousness of your hypocrisy.

no, i don't think that i am.

remember when you insinuated that pete was lazy or trying to get money that he didn't earn because he was in a union? when have i done anything like that.

you did the same thing with sonny--you accused him of something untrue simply because you disagreed with his position.

you think in binomial terms and you castigate the whole spectrum of other possible terms other than the ones you see.

i am pretty comfortable with my ability to see a much broader spectrum than just black and white.