| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2005 09:28:22 AM |
| Object: |
OT: The War President |
The War President
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking
seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
Paul Krugman
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2275877b0d3f639a
http://snipurl.com/7h5c
Ohio
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b9e74143ef42ef3d
.
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: The War President |
24 Jun 2005 06:28:46 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119605302.757105.180300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The War President
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking
seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
For those without a NY Times login, here's the full text of the Krugman
piece linked to above:
The War President
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 24, 2005
VIENNA
In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant
statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.
America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers
and their thirst for glory. That's why they took care to deny presidents the
kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.
But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war
president." And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing
the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.
In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told
an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to
war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was
right.
Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It
would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't
turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out
of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.
Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade
Iraq, then focus on why it matters.
The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped
the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.
And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime
minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas
intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer
than that.
The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was
released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news"
that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an
excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they
didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held
Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a
last resort.
Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones.
The question, they say, is what we do now. But they're wrong: it's crucial
that those responsible for the war be held to account.
Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force
levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the
administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult
discussion of the need to get out.
On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact
that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are
still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says *****
Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals
intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle
for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being
unpatriotic.
We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate.
And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us
to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the
rest of us about patriotism.
The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier
than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if
only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but
that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.
In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the
Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition
that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about
Iraq's W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was
more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who
blamed Saddam.
Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking
seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
***
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga."
- Dalai Llama
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Exit Strategy Was: OT: The War President |
24 Jun 2005 07:13:25 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
The War President
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking
seriously about how to get out of Iraq.
Paul Krugman
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2275877b0d3f639a
http://snipurl.com/7h5c
Ohio
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b9e74143ef42ef3d
I just don't see the situation in Iraq being anything like Vietnam as
far as what would result from the allies leaving. It is currently a
civil war not just an occupation. It seems that not much of an exit
strategy would be required. We already have a large part of the
population interested in, and part way to being self-supportive. They
already have the rifles, the government and the police force to some
extent.
Why can't we just pull out? I ask that question in the practical sense
without addressing any ulterior motives that may make Bubba want to
stay. Does anyone have an opinion on what the resulting civil war
would be like if we left? Would it last longer or end more quickly if
the troops left?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
