Paul Krugman: 'Taken for a ride'
Date: Friday, March 19 @ 10:06:27 EST
Topic: War & Terrorism


By Paul Krugman, New York Times

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on anything you were aiding terrorists.

Now we know that he meant just that.

A year ago, President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will — and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction — damaged our credibility. They imagine that only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland — which has roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq — had this to say: "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."


This is the context for last weekend's election upset in Spain, where the Aznar government had taken the country into Iraq against the wishes of 90 percent of the public. Spanish voters weren't intimidated by the terrorist bombings — they turned on a ruling party they didn't trust. When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the contrary and used its control over state television and radio both to push its false accusation and to play down antigovernment protests, it reminded people of the broader lies about the war.

By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr. Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge terrorist attack within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."

So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists.

Notice, by the way, that Spain's prime minister-elect insists that he intends to fight terrorism. He has even said that his country's forces could remain in Iraq if they were placed under U.N. control. So if the Bush administration were really concerned about maintaining a united front against terrorism, all it would have to do is drop its my-way-or-the-highway approach. But it won't.

For these denunciations of Spain, while counterproductive when viewed as foreign policy, serve a crucial domestic purpose: they help re-establish the political climate the Bush administration prefers, in which anyone who opposes any administration policy can be accused of undermining the fight against terrorism.

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing John Kerry of, among other things, opposing increases in combat pay because he voted against an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. Those who have followed this issue were astonished at the ad's sheer up-is-down-ism.

In fact, the Bush administration has done the very thing it falsely accuses Mr. Kerry of doing: it has tried repeatedly to slash combat pay and military benefits, provoking angry articles in The Army Times with headlines like "An Act of `Betrayal.' " Oh, and Mr. Kerry wasn't trying to block funds for Iraq — he was trying to force the administration, which had concealed the cost of the occupation until its tax cut was passed, to roll back part of the tax cut to cover the expense.

But the bigger point is this: in the Bush vision, it was never legitimate to challenge any piece of the administration's policy on Iraq. Before the war, it was your patriotic duty to trust the president's assertions about the case for war. Once we went in and those assertions proved utterly false, it became your patriotic duty to support the troops — a phrase that, to the administration, always means supporting the president. At no point has it been legitimate to hold Mr. Bush accountable. And that's the way he wants it.

Blah Blah Blah!
freakin liberals.

The current administration is trying to kill the people who have sworn to kill us before they succeed. If you would like to sit down and talk peace with them post your address and maybe some of those muslims can come over to your house and discuss how Bush is such a *****.....Then when you're done they can kill you and your whole family in the name of Islam.....

How about we take a few of you for and let your fellow employeees and associates write articles in the Times about there impressions of you and your time together ? Would you accept the findings as apt descriptions of you and your views?

I have trouble listening to people that want to turn our country into Canada by voting for Prime Minister Kerry.

I generally find most, if not all, politicians to be lying sacks, no matter what their official political party affiliation.

Pimp,

I don't find it to be a function of "freakin' liberals" to question your government, especially when the fact that it's lying to you is pretty well known. Is it part of being a "freakin' conservative" to assume you're not being lied to, as long as it's a republican President?

Grandpa,

I agree that the US is battling folks that have sworn to try and kill Americans. However, that doesn't justify having to hear our government lie to us about it. The end does not justify the means. WMD's? No, or at least, not yet. Even the remotest connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? None.

Here's a question...would anyone be surprised if we found Osama Bin Laden around the middle of September, and then WMD's three to four weeks later?

We'll see about that...but I wouldn't be surprised.


Todd

What is even more shocking is all the people yelling LIAR when they have zero first hand knowledge of what was said or done. Just media spin and their half assed opinion.

Take out a Map of the region and look at where Iraq sits. If you were to buy real estate that puts you in the best position to disrupt travel from known terrorist freindly areas where would you buy it? If you wanted real estate that would allow you a freindly base in which to strike at hostile Govts and Terror groups in the ME where would you want it. given that this is a cultural war likely to last a while. Now take this real estate and put it before Congress and the American people for due diligence and tell me how long it would take to happen. It's just like building a pond in King County ,foregiveness is easier than the permit. If it did not occur to people that not being on the inside of every govermental transaction does not mean your govt. is lying to you or being deceptive. Iit just might mean it is doing it's job with two arms and one leg tied behinds it's back because of all the back seat drivers and soccer moms in this country. If you want to live in a country like Canada or France then keep up the same BS that stretched the cold war out 30 years. I guess it's too much to ask people to not force the government to live the same fractured life that most citizens do with all the finger pointing and blame being heaped on everyone else but you. This country was built by men of character ,bold decisieive in action not afraid to take risk because the risk of not making a decison was too great. Some how it morphed into a bunch of mammas boys looking for the easy way out with someone they can blame in case it gets tough. Welcome to Washington the land of the free and home of the weak.

This is a little off the subject, but twice now I've seen reference to Canada being such a bad place to live. Why? They've got cheaper drugs, legal drugs, no terrorist attacks, and the Vedder River. I see a lot more Americans going up there for vacation than I do Canucks coming down here. If you're trying to make some point about the US becomig like a bad country, choose Mexico or Cuba. People are dieing trying to get out of those countries. I don't see where being a little more like Canada is such a bad thing.

And before all the neocons even suggest it - because I don't want to, that's why. I love this country far too much to leave it to the likes of you.

By the way, Elvis, your real estate analogy is overly simplistic at best. What you describe is colonialism and imperialism, both of which the US historically has not condoned. That's why we've fought the likes of Russia, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, etc. in the past. Continuing under the guise you suggest would be complete hypocrisy on our part.

Freakin' cold war! We shoulda nuked them commie b@stards back in '51 I tell ya! Hell yeah! Global thermonuclear war!

Y'all know how good steelheadin' is in winter... We coulda been steelheadin' in a 1000 year nuclear winter!

Sometimes you just gotta wonder...

Todd if the Sept findings happened that would be great.
That would prove that Bush did the right thing.(which I believe personally to already be the case)Thus getting him a sure reelection.
Works for me to keep Kerry out of office.

Oh, and about the lying.I agree we shouldnt have to put up with it.But does anybody honestly think that will change with a change in the presidency.Not hardly.

If George Bush would have gone to war before the Attack, you same liberals preaching he should have done something would still ***** because he was killing innocent people. Todd no I don't think that all polititcians are honest. We don't need to become socialists like some other countries.

That's the problem most of those freakin' liberals have; going to war for no legitimate reason. But you're probably right, we should just take the offensive and attack any country we suspect to hold terrorists. Hell, just look at the good it's done Isreal during the last 40 years. Now that's some damn progress there.

And what's wrong with socialism? It's worked for the Department of Defense for over 200 years. Or would you know anything about that?

I guess I'm not smart enough to know anything about anything. Sorry to be so confused.

Goharley,

Go pay taxes in canada then tell me how great you think it is. It is following in the footsteps of other socialist liberal welfare states like, France,Gb etc . Great places to visit do not make great places to live. Since when is it Imperialism to go to a country root out the bad guys and turn it over toa free people to self rule? Cite all the examples of American imperialism? All you can find is one country that is more charitable than all the others combined both governmental and private. You have been reading the papers and listing to Dan rather too much or you are a teacher!

TheKing

Watching a lot of Fox News lately

Pimpin
You say the word Liberal like it is a bad thing.

Lead thrower,

Nope. Some good reading out there if you look for it

Yeah, it's hell bein' informed.

You know, it's kind of odd that you vilify the American government in another thread for being concerned with educating our youth and providing human services to those less fortunate in our own nation. Yet, here, you applaud the act of doing it for another country that, according to you, we are doing out of the kindness of our hearts - expecting nothing in return.

Now if we could only get you, and others like you, to feel that way about your own countrymen, we'd truly be a United States. :rolleyes:

GH,

A little hisrtory lesson for you. The federal govt has very few requirements under the constitution. National security is one of them. Individual states in the fedration can see to the education of it inhabitants per their discretion. It does not require a federal mandate.

Ya look at what the I 5 Corrider gave us these great POS!

Locke, McDermott, Lowery, Greqore, Murray, Cantwell, Simms.

What a bunch of losers.

Attention Lead Thrower:

Being Liberal is not a bad thing it is a mental disorder requiring immediate medical attention.

PEACE LOVE AND ROCK N ROLL BABY!!!!

Grandpa

You are starting to grow on me even though you are a member of the dark side. :p

P.S. That was a pretty good one you came up with.

Hey Gramps,

I believe it's supposed to be "SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK-N-ROLL!"

That's a pretty tough ideology to deny...

You are correct 4Salt....SEX is a good deal no matter what party you vote for. But I hear Republicans have sex with their wives and Democrats have sex with whomever is handy at the moment...doesn't even matter if it is with the same sex....maybe that's even more acceptable?

Log Cabin Republicans.