Krugman: Other People's Sacrifice

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09KRUG.html

In his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: "We cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." He also spoke, in a way he hasn't before, about "sacrifice." Yet, as always, what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people.

It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible tax cuts.

Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, "Is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody business of rebuilding Iraq?" The example of Afghanistan (where warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban — remember those guys? — is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right.

Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while others do all the giving.

[Bozita]

1. He's on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS tonight

should be starting now for some viewers.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. I was just waiting for Krugman's reply to Jr's speech last night

I was just about to post it myself. Another homerun from the all time champ.

[Marlie]

3. Thanks for the heads up on the Charlie Rose Show

I don't think we've discussed it much over here but Paul's new
book 'The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way to the New Century'
is number 12 on Amazon's best selling book list today - I hope
it continues to climb. He's bar far the best journalist we have
now.

[benfranklin1776]

8. An upper deck blast it was.

He sums up the essence of Mr. Bush's basic philosophy rather concisely, which is the same philosophy shared by arrogant, elitist rulers since the dawn of time, namely that the king has the divine right to reap the riches and rewards earned by the sweat and the sacrifice of his subjects but no obligation to share those riches or rewards with them or to assume any of the burden of their acqusition. The alleged nobility of course must be bribed into acquiescence to the kings plans no matter how ill conceived and stupid, and they must therefore be given a large share of the fruits of the peasants labors. If the king's ill-founded wars go bad then it is of course the peasants who are to pay the cost in lives and treasure not he or the rest of the alleged nobility.

Alas George seems to have skipped over that whole American Revolution thing which was quite the emphatic rejection of that absurd notion of the alleged divine right of kings. He clearly favors a return to the good old days of monarchy in which we are all his loyal obedient subjects happily working as serfs for his fellow lords and paying for his indulgences.
Sorry I don't think that is going to happen. Maybe after the 2004 election he can ask his good buds in the Saudi royal family to make him a prince there where he'll feel right at home repressing the citizenry.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. This paragraph is a work of art!

Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?

[paulk]

5. krugman is one of the few pundits

who treats Bush with the utter contempt he deserves.

[Martin Eden]

6. I never bother reading the -snips- from a Krugman column...

...I just click right on the link and read the whole article, because this guy is always right on!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I can't think of anyone

who deserves a Pulitzer Prize more.

[OldCurmudgeon]

9. Pulitzer?

Krugman is an economist, not a journalist.

The appropriate prize for an economist is a Nobel.

[fencesitter]

10. I wish he would write the Dem's speeches..

and the candidates could speak so clearly and fearlessly.

[fencesitter]

11. Oh, I forgot...

Last night when the news was talking to people on the street, I couldn't believe the amount of people who believed that Bush was an honest and straight shooting president, that he has always told us the truth and they trust him to do the job.