Usually the Venerable Krug’s contributions are behind the paywall at the NYT, but the following was posted at the Economists’ View website.
Why, you might ask, would anyone pay to read something written by the Krugs? Well, there’s this special class of contrarian investors who read what the Krugs writes and determine their investment strategies 180 degrees from that, and, from what I understand, do quite well.
Two More Years, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:
At a reception following the midterm election, President Bush approached Senator-elect James Webb. “How’s your boy?†asked Mr. Bush.
“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,†replied Mr. Webb, whose son, a Marine lance corporal, is risking his life in Mr. Bush’s war of choice.
“That’s not what I asked you,†the president snapped. “How’s your boy?â€Â
“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,†said Mr. Webb.
Good for him. We need people in Washington who are willing to stand up to the bully in chief. Unfortunately, and somewhat mysteriously, they’re still in short supply. … [It’s] amazing … the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating.
Look at what … happened to the Iraq Study Group[’s] … “independent assessment.†If press reports are correct, the group … watered down its … recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn’t reject out of hand. In particular, says Newsweek, … All it will do is “suggest that the president could, not should, begin to withdraw forces in the vaguely defined future.†…
Even now, … the wise men of Washington can’t bring themselves to face up to two glaringly obvious truths. The first is that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq for no reason.
It’s true that terrible things will happen when U.S. forces withdraw. Everyone … realizes that the civil war will get even worse after we’re gone, and that there will probably be a bloody bout of ethnic cleansing…
But nobody  not even Donald Rumsfeld, it turns out  thinks we’re making progress in Iraq. So the same terrible things … will still happen if we delay … withdrawal for two, three or more years. The only difference is that we’ll sacrifice many more American lives along the way.
The second truth is that the war will go on all the same, unless something or someone forces Mr. Bush to change course.
During his recent trip to Vietnam, Mr. Bush was asked whether there were any lessons from that conflict for Iraq. His response: “We’ll succeed unless we quit.â€Â
It was a bizarre answer …, but it makes perfect sense given what we know about Mr. Bush’s character. He has never been willing to own up to mistakes… If he were to accept the failure … in Iraq, he would be admitting … to having made the mother of all mistakes.
So Mr. Bush will keep sending other men’s children off to fight his war. And he’ll always insist that Iraq would have been a great victory if only his successors had shared his steely determination.
Does this mean that we’re doomed to at least two more years of bloody futility? Not necessarily. … He’s still the commander in chief, but the new majority in Congress can put a lot of pressure on him to at least begin a withdrawal.
I’m worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?
Well, here’s a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully’s ego?
Notice, in the Krugs’ recounting, who snapped and who said.
Well, we’re all aware how up-front the Krugs is about his own mistakes. He’s awfully brave to speak truth to power behind the paywall at the NYT, don’t you know, when young patriots dupes are in harm’s way.
Yep, all of those people in the Twin Towers died for a bully’s ego. Same with the victims of the Embassy Bombings and the Cole.
All of those people in mass graves in Iraq died for a bully’s ego.
All of those people in the Sudan are dying for a bully’s ego.
Those people in Madrid died for a bully’s ego, and so did the victims in London.
Daniel Pearl died for a bully’s ego; so did Leon Klinghoffer.
Bush will be gone in two years, but you’ll still be writing your self-righteous idiocies, and if you’re wrong, it won’t make any difference, because I would wipe my ass with your columns if I didn’t have any respect for my ass. Fuck you, Krugman.
Like Dan says!
Twice!
Krugman is antiAmerican as well as a complete fool.
(Plus he is an asswipe)
Krugman is a twatwaffle.
Krugman is the definition of twatwaffle.
I wouldn’t use the New York Times to wipe my ass.
Mr. Shulzberger: Put up that wall!
What Dan said, raised to the power of infinity.
The New York Times is what you get when you wipe your ass with the New York Post.
See also Neil Cavuto’s enormously entertaining thumping of the “genius”.
I shoulda said, “Kruk you, Fugman.” Oh, well.
what i notice is that you don’t argue the points raised…you make personal attacks and raise other straw-men that weren’t even alluded to in the opinion column. why not? why nopt argue tha issues straight up. are you able? to paraphrase…you are awfully brave to rant pure fiction behind your little blog aren’t you?
No, jay. If you look at what I’ve read, you’ll see that I do make specific references.
For example, to Krugman’s own very dodgy history with reporting the facts.
For example, to the depiction of a “war of choice,” reminding people of who the real villains of the situation are.
For example, to the characterization of Bush as the one snapping and Webb as the one responding reasonably, when that is not how the exchange was characterized by people who witnessed it firsthand.
Krugman is notoriously fast-and-loose with his facts, as has been proved on occasions, not innumerable, but that only seem innumerable. Does he have evidence that Bush really didn’t feel that he had compelling reason to go into Iraq? Let him produce it. Has Krugs come clean when others have pointed out the tendentiousness of his arguments? Not to my knowledge. Is it right to characterize Webb’s rudeness as courage? What was Bush the Imperial President going to do? Have his Praetorian Guard throw the guy in jail?
Who’s making personal attacks, Jay? I’m just speaking truth to the naked guy at the pulpit.
What I noticed is that jay k seems to have trouble finding the shift key.
I can only speak for myself, but I can’t be bothered with the thoughts of someone who can’t be bothered with grammar, punctuation, or spelling.
I wonder why Mr Webb’s son joined the Marines. I remember why I joined up, and if my father had insulted the Prime Minister over what I was doing in my regiment I would have died of shame.
Fortunately my father is neither an ill-mannered arsehole nor a publicity-seeking hypocrite, so the situation never arose.
But by God, I feel sorry for Lance Corporal Webb.
what i notice is that you don’t argue the points raised…you make personal attacks and raise other straw-men that weren’t even alluded to in the opinion column. why not? why nopt argue tha issues straight up. are you able? to paraphrase…you are awfully brave to rant pure fiction behind your little blog aren’t you?
Posted by jay k. | permalink
Well put. Don’t expect a miserable little asswipe like Collins to actually address the issues raised in Krugman’s column. All he and his equally intellectually-challenged and mentally-deficient radical right-wing comrades are ever able to do is spout tripe.
If by “well put” you mean utterly wrong, then yes. As Cavuto told Kruggy yesterday “You don’t have to be snide, Paul, you have to be factual.”
Dan Collins went with factual, and you’ve gone with “I’ll just flash my ass.”
Kruk you, DA.
tw: food99
Feel free to choke on it.
Geez, when the self-referential passes into the self-reverential, this is what you get.
What points? Please help me out, for I am intellectually challenged and mentally deficient.
What were the issues raised in Krugman’s column that you spotted and that we
managed to miss, Devil’s Advocate? Or is your nom de plume meant literally?
I’m asking you rather than the cretin who goes by the name of jay k because you seem, on the surface, marginally more likely to be capable of attempting to make some sort of coherent response. Don’t disappoint me, will you?
furriskey,
While I understand that you’re looking for a deeper answer, he joined the Marines because he wanted to and he took his oath knowing there’s a war on. Which makes it Lance Corporal Webb’s war of choice, doesn’t it?
No, I wasn’t looking for a deeper answer. That has to be the answer, or he never would have made it through boot camp.
But I am saddened by the lack of respect his own father shows him, and indeed his C in C.
And as you say, it makes it Lance Corporal Webb’s war of choice.
I wonder whgat our two visiting freeform idiots would choose to fight for?
(TW 76 again. This freedom thing is everywhere.)
In addition to his numerous other “failings,” George W. Bush has got to be the worst bully I’ve ever heard of. Bullying that poor senator-elect by asking about his deployed son/soldier.
What an asswipe!
Man, if only we had more people in positions of power willing to stand up to that theocrat, king, bully-in-chief Chimpy McHilterBurton.
dc…
this is a war of choice. afghanistan wasn’t. this is. bush’s choice. no one elses.
webb never talked about his son during campaigning. yes it was known he was in iraq…but he never talked specifically about him. bush most certainly knew that but pressed, yes pressed, anyway. said and snapped are not facts. the real issue here is about people willing to stand up and call bs. not enough people have, and that includes the mousy forth estate. certainly not pajama media moguls who are all in favor of this war, but seem to be very reticent to actually enlist and participate in their noble cause.
you are looking for facts in an opinion column? fox news would be taken off the air. some facts are unknowable…at least until the records are opened decades from now. look at lbj who was publicly talking about winning in vietnam…but we now know knew it was lost. certainly we now know bush had enough reason to doubt he had a compelling reason to go to iraq…assuming he read any of the intelligence or projections available to him.
the naked guy in the pulpit is bush, and you seem to be happy following blindly. anyone that watched him this morning and still has confidence in him as commander in chief needs to pay closer attention.
I understand that the relationship between the two is not a warm one. Some of the elder Webb’s response to Bush may be attributable to a lack of knowledge as to how his son is doing.
I wonder if Charlie Rangel and John Kerry think that LCPL Webb’s just didn’t have any decent options other than enlisting in the Marines to go fight in Iraq.
What are the supposed “issues” here?
1. Iraq is a war of choice.
Okay, granted. But nearly all wars that don’t involve the invasion of the US are. The “choice” was backed by an overwhelming Congressional majority? Why? Because after 911, the thinking was that we could not risk allowing Hussein’s regime to supply terror groups with weapons every intelligence agency in the world thought he had—weapons that still have not been accounted for.
Additionally, the “choice” was part of a larger strategy for fighting a larger war. Iraq is merely a piece of the overall plan. To have a strategy involves making certain choices. So Bush’s “war of choice”—which Krugman, if he were honest, would call Congress’ “war of choice” (not to mention the American people’s “war of choice,” as Americans fairly overwhelmingly supported to the decision, if I remember correctly)—is really a strategic move of choice. There were certainly other choices, one of which was to do nothing.
I’m not sure which “choice” Krugman advocated. What I am sure of is that his rhetorical excesses are laughably transparent.
2. The Webb incident: as others have noted, Krugman’s characterization of the exchange doesn’t jibe with eyewitness accounts. But that doesn’t stop Krugman from using narrative framing devices to demonize the person he’s always demonized.
3. Bush is the “bully in chief.” Evidently, Krugman means by this that Bush uses his office as commander and chief to assert his will as commander and chief.
The elected bastard!
4. We’re not making progress in Iraq.
This is patently false. We’re making progress in certain areas and in others we are falling short of expectations. The GAO report makes this clear.
The question then is how to we get to our goal of making the kind of progress we hope to make. Krugman has already concluded that we can do nothing. Which begs the question.
5. The Iraq Study Group has wimped out. Presumably because it doesn’t say what Krugman wants it to say.
How does one answer that? Krugman’s insistence that things are the way he thinks they are is not a logical argument. It is a faith-based assessment.
6. Bush isn’t sending “children” off to war. He is using a volunteer military that consists of grown up men and women, some of whom even have working brains (Rangel and Kerry’s protestations to the contrary aside). Cheap emotional appeals don’t strengthen his “argument,” which appears to be this: I BELIEVE WE SHOULD LEAVE IRAQ! I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT! Bush, on the otherhand, does not. Ergo, HE IS STUBBORN, WHILE I AM PRINCIPLED!
Krugman projects. His ego is far larger than Bush’s. Which is why he is so invested in “proving” Bush a bully and an egomaniac. He wants to be proven correct in his judgments.
Bush, on the other hand, wants to protect a country.
You don’t get out much, do you jay k? Have you ever heard of a little thing Congress passed call the Joint Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq?
Even John Kerry was for it before he was against it. No one man can take us to war.
It seems more than likely. I’m glad I addressed my question to Devil’s Advocate and not the other one. He seems to have been over-indulging in some sort of befuddling substances.
Not sure how to respond to this one, really.
This is probably known to all already but my understanding was that LCpl Webb was nearby an IED several days prior to the Webb/Bush meeting. Bush was aware of Webb’s son’s proximity and was concerned for Webb’s son’s safety. It was something one father would ask another about a child’s safety. Webb’s response was disrespectful to both his son and to the president.
Its another way in which Bush has been unfairly demonized. I firmly believe history will treat him far more kindly, no matter what happens in Iraq.
I hate to break this to you, but the military isn’t taking 50+ year old men these days. But if you don’t think Charles Johnson is on the front lines of this larger war, and has taken his position there at substantial personal risk, you are a damned fool. I can assure you that there are at least thousands of people who very much want him dead because of his work at LGF, and they are America’s enemies.
Dear jay,
It has recently come to my attention that the economy is booming. I consider myself well-informed, but my old media sources only recently shared the good news.
If I may be so bold, I’ll venture that it is perhaps due to deliberate misreporting, like Krug’s, that this great news continues to be missed by many fine minds, including your own.
So, for the record, from me to you, given all established metrics, the U.S. economy is <shift>BOOMING</shift>.
I’m so glad to finally find out. Aren’t you?
-Steve
Because Congress never had a say in it?
And what would the good Congressman have said about the President if he hadn’t asked? I can tell you: he knew that my son was in Iraq, but this Commander-in-Chief cares so little for his soldiers that he didn’t even ask.
Of course not, and there’s no difference between he threw the brick to me, and he threw the brick at me.
Just so long as they’re calling it against Bush, in which case they’re sacrosanct.
Really? Has Krugman gone to Iraq to get the first-hand perspective? Is Bill Ardolino going? What do you suppose is the relative readership of right-wing blog participation and left-wing blog participation among those presently serving in Iraq? Is it because they are deluded as to the nature and prospects for their mission?
Why, yes, I am, when the opinions are presented as facts. Yes, I do look for facts, even in opinion columns.
Undoubtedly, if it were up to you.
Such as what was said at the meetings that Carter misreports in his new book? Such as the meaning of “is”?
When scholars will be free to pick and choose what constitutes true and untrue accounts. Meanwhile, let us just rely on Krugman’s representations, for his motives are pure.
But as it turns out, LBJ was incorrect, at least according to some historians with access to more records.
Gee, were you one of the people who was trying to sell us on the idea of John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief? Did you catch Krugs on Cavuto, last night?
Measured words. Any response, Devil’s Advocate?
There are no substantive points raised by Krugman, just a rehash of the same distortions and lies from the left;
steve,
the economy is not booming. it is a house of cards and our friends in china have their hands poised at the base cards. pay attention.
I shouldn’t let Krugman get under my skin, but…
I decided to Google “Krugman, Tech Bubble, 2000, NYT”
Nothing.
But the flack sure spews alot about Bush’s “housing Bubble” in 2002-2005.
I’m reminded of that Mel Brooks character, the Count de Money’s piss-bucket carrier.
-Steve
Is it just me or did jay (not O) k sound like an activist wanna be sophomore at UC – Berk. furiously text messaging Markos his incomplete understanding of the Kos talking points? That was one of the most incoherent screeds I have ever read and I feel as though some damage has been done to the grey matter.
There is “stream of consciousness” and there is “River of Whirled Peas.”
My favorite was the “decision was Bush’s alone.” That’s a head scratcher! Forgetting about congress for a minute (including Hilary, Cary, Kennedy, Murtha, etc.) how about the other members of the administration as well as The Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military advisors?
No. None of them wanted to invade Iraq! Every last one pleaded and begged the president, but he wouldn’t relent. Blood for Oil! Halliburton! Kill the civilians!!
Great googly-moogly, the left doth confuse me so!
Special thanks to Dan, Jeff and others for not discriminating against the <shift> key.
Uh oh! This sounds vaguely nauseatingly familiar…
BJ–
Don’t worry. Jay apparently works at a big architectural firm in CT, so details, facts, those things aren’t important to the work he does.
I’m disappointed.
(Nice analogy with the bricks, Dan. fee amaan illah, jay, you sad little Sinophobe.)
Before you know it, jay k will be proposing a balloon fence and dirt berm to defend Israel while dazzling us with his MAD math and engineering skillz!
It’s really not possible to rebut the Left’s Holy Mantras. And repeating them sells a lot of books to “intellectuals” craving repetition of the correct noises.
I think the Nursery-Rhyming Krugman knows exactly what he is doing. He’s probably not as wild-eyed as he looks.
Except for my son who is also a LCPL in the USMC.
Which makes him about a million times better man than you could ever wish to be, you chickenjihaddi.
[tw: door, as in don’t let it hit you on the ass on your way out]
Mr. scotch
Oh now look what you’ve done! You’ve opened the door to a guy who is on an Architectural Staff in CT and given him the simian soapbox for power peace engineering.
Have you no shame?
However, I do enjoy you from a heavy tumbler with a single square icecube of filtered water…
BJT,
As my wife has made this a standing rule in our house, I’ll pass it along to you:
But, jay k. is, as you noted, posting comments very reminiscent of the recently departed mb.
No.
All he did was wear his son’s Army Boots throughout the entire campaign and make sure the media knew this.
As for Krugman, Cavuto destroyed him. I’ve seen others with similar expertise do the same. It doesn’t appear to be very diffucult.
It is rather, um, useful to base one’s opinions on facts.
If, on the other hand it is just opinion, then Dan can feel free to launch opinions back.
The first of which, of course, is that Krugman is a lying sack of assholes.
Which is oddly like… a fact.
Developing…
Cavuto calls Krugmann a liar:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/05/video-cavuto-catches-krugmans-disingenuous-take-on-super-rich-controlled-economy/
Arrrrgh, sorry.
Marshmallow Fluff makes a good caulk, and catches ants, to boot.
SGT,
Perhaps our little friend meant to say that Webb didn’t talk to his son during campaigning.
It’s NOT? According to all press accounts, the economy leapt off its deathbed, danced a jig, and then nailed a Thai hooker sometime about 12:01AM EST, Nov. 8.
Poor little small cap jay k. Mindlessly regurgitating Talking Points can get so confusing.
On the topic of the ISG report and Krugman’s “analysis,” I was listening to C-span’s Washington Journal this morning, and couldn’t help but notice that the moonbat “Defense-Squads” were out in force.
And for good reason: their house is on fire. The ISG report says – in a nut shell, Bush, Abizaid, Franks and Rumsfield were right.
This neatly explains Krugman’s motivation for his preemptive hit-piece: the only chance left to save his paper’s credibility, after it brazenly politicized (lied about?) the Iraq war, is for it’s paid pundits, like Krugman, to mischaracterize the report’s conclusions and to demonize the ISG’s individual members.
BTW: didn’t Krugman puff Enron for dollars at one time?
OT, (kind of) I think the media is milking the demos’ technical ignorances for economic gain. In particular, comments critical of the group’s resolutions revealed a discomforting level of ignorance about the difficulties involved in mediating compromises in a voting group of informed, professional people.
Other similarly technical fields, like economics, cell-biology and meteorology, are similarly prone. Which may be the reason why the Sulzbergers continue to pay pundits like Krugman to focus his “analysis” on them.
-Steve
No, the economy is not booming: the Dollar is down vs the Euro! Hey, I’m only repeating what the last Lefty I asked told me about it. “The economy is in terrible shape.”
But Soros would probably be about to unload Euros for Dollars.
Meanwhile, I agree with Steve also in that the ISG does seem to actually say the Military policy in Iraq is working, with a first quarter 2008 drawdown very likely/doable.
Many dollars, and more than one time.
But the retroactive spin is that, yeah, he took the money, but he “did nothing in return.” Bilked ‘em. So he’s a thiefâ€â€or a liar if not.
“Corrupt” splits that baby just fine.
Yes, simply awful economy. Can we all pitch in to send our lower-case friend a new keyboard with working shift and punctuation keys? Equipped with that and a newfound sense of paragraph breaks, he just might make some sense.
Hope springs eternal.
Slarti:
You might as well include community college courses on Current Events, US and World history, Economics, Political Science and Basic English Grammer, all of which he apparantly missed during the grinding years at Architectural School.
Liberal Arts: The Other White Meat!
BJ–
Agreed, but spell it “grammar,” or people will mock you.
Dan:
I shall shave my head, wrap my feet in rags and wander the earth chanting “I BEFORE E EXCEPT AFTER C!”
Oh, and I expect to be mocked mercilessly for that aggregious error. Penance, you see…
The inanity of this post simply proves the validity of your sub-head. “Anybody,” in this case, certainly includes the host.
Well, it certainly includes Krugman, synergyguy.
Dan Collins Quasi Intellectual Semi Permanant Post Sub Headquarters!
Yea, I’d like to report a crime.
What crime would that be, sir?
Drive by trolling.
I see. How do you know it’s a drive by troll?
It was vapidly critical and host specific insulting. Plus he had a stupid handle with an even dumber E-mail ID.
Thank you for reporting this, sir! Please notify us again if this pukey little unwashed vermin makes another appearance. We’ll send the truck.
Great! Is, um, there some kind of reward?
You bet, sparky. We’ll overlook that last stupid spelling mistake. Geez, dude, on the word “grammar” no less. Where’d you go to school, Filene’s Basement?
certainly not pajama media moguls who are all in favor of this war, but seem to be very reticent to actually enlist and participate in their noble cause.
Gray: war supporter and Sergeant, National Guard.
Fuck you very much.
Really, the only difference between a peacenik and a traitor is that a traitor may not also be a coward.
That has been saved and will make its way to the friend base.
BTW: Thank you for your service, Gray, from this out of shape 50 year old war monger.
BJ,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful riposte. You are quite the quick wit.
However, when recess is over and you’re back in class, please look up the word “apparently,” which you misspelled in addition to the word “grammar.”
Otherwise, steller work. Speaking of stupid handles, does “BJ” stand for a service you provide for lunch money? Fair and balanced minds want to know…
Oof: I always feel kinda bad playing “The Grunt Card”, but it always trumps the “Chickenhawk Card”.
No one supports this war more than the ones fighting it.
In fact, I think it is a truism that the farther removed from this war, and it’s effects, the greater the opposition.
Cowardice breeds cowardice….
The filthy leftists have no choice but to denounce this as ‘an illegal war’:
if they ever admitted that this is an existential war for liberal virtues and values, they would have to confront their own chickenshit nature and that would just kill them!
synergyguy–
That’s “stellar.” It’s kind of like “grammar.”
Dammit, Dan, I was hoping BJ would take the bait!
Now you’ve spoiled my retort.
Oh well, it is your site, after all.
You kids have a nice day…
BWAAAA HAHAHAHAH WHEW! Boy, oh boy I’ve never heard that one before! You have a scintillating insight to go with your cutting edge sarcasm. I am just breathless! Oh, and a Fox News jab. Knee slapping witty, I say!
For your info, synershit, those are the actual initials of my name, not some juvenile made up handle you can hide behind. And while we are at it, turn in your Grammar Police badge and check the spelling on “stellar.”
Now, do you have anything substantive to say or shall we continue to spar?
Ok, come back with the retort because you meant to misspell that word. Then we’ll move on to something more interesting like, oh, I don’t know, the thread topic?
I too salute your service Gray. Concerning me, I’m a 47 year old out of shape ex-sailor myself. That don’t count for much compared to what you guys go through.
I’d love to do an experiment though. Have a special military volunteer group who’s only job is to go to Darfur and protect the poor folks being slaughtered and raped by the Janjaweed there. I wonder how many SCWs (Sign Carrying Warriors) from Leftist Strongholds such as Berkley, Manhattan, Boston, Madison, and other Beacons of Bravery would sign up. What’s that I hear? Crickets? How about if we make it a Draft instead. What’s that I hear? The sound of running feet heading towards Canada?
SGT: I seem to remember that there were plenty of peaceniks willing to be (or at least say that they would be) human shields for Saddam. Why no great outcry to be human shields for Darfur?
Maybe, just maybe, they have less confidence in the screaming tribal islamic horse cavalry than they do in the US military.
RACISTS!!
Gosh. Jay with a little jay. What do you suppose all them chinese are gonna do with all them dollars? Hunh?
I sure hope it used some, uh, protection during the encounter. Because I don’t think my 401(k) could survive a case of Economy Clap.
Gee, that sure was civil and elevating the level of discourse….