I want a divorce from Bush - Krugman

[Clark2008]

A charming man courts a woman, telling her that he's a wealthy independent businessman. Just after the wedding, however, she learns that he has been cooking the books, several employees have accused him of sexual harassment and his company is about to file for bankruptcy. She accuses him of deception. "The accountability moment is behind us," he replies.

Last week President Bush declared that the election was the "accountability moment" for the war in Iraq - the voters saw it his way, and that's that. But Mr. Bush didn't level with the voters during the campaign and doesn't deserve anyone's future trust.

I won't belabor the W.M.D. issue, except to point out that the Bush administration, without exactly lying, managed to keep most voters confused. According to a Pew poll, on the eve of the election the great majority of voters, of both parties, believed that the Bush administration had asserted that it found either W.M.D. or an active W.M.D. program in Iraq.

Mr. Bush also systematically misrepresented how the war was going. Remember last September when Ayad Allawi came to Washington? Mr. Allawi, acting as a de facto member of the Bush campaign - a former official close to the campaign suggested phrases and helped him rehearse his speech to Congress - declared that 14 or 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces were "completely safe," and that the interim government had 100,000 trained troops. None of it was true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html?oref=login

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. kick

[alittlelark]

2. "I want one too" - signed, 'over 1/2 of America'

....sigh....

[Robbien]

3. A good way to get attention to the social security issue

A divorce, ha!

Interesting. Andrew Biggs the associate commissioner for retirement policy at the Social Security Administration was the former assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization. No wonder he believes he can force the SS employees to push propaganda on the people. It is what he has had Cato do to us for the last dozen or so years.

[Clark2008]

7. If this were the Catholic Church, we could still get an annulment

Afterall, we won't be consumating anything until Jan. 20.

[BadGimp]

4. too late folks

WASS

[Lostnote03]

5. State Of The Union Address should be Impeachable by definition

[Emboldened Chimp]

6. Lying to Congress sounds impeachable to me

In his 2003 SOTU, he laid out in specific terms all the WMDs Saddam supposedly had. None of it was true. I don't care where the information came from--CIA, DIA, Joe Schmoe--it's his responsibility to make sure the information is accurate before telling the entire nation while standing before Congress.

[Hamlette]

8. be sure and read the Time article linked at the end of Krugman's

good stuff

[The Zanti Regent]

9. I want California to divorce Bush

It's time to work for a free and independent California.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. That was one of the simplest and best explanations of * tactics yet.

Makes the point in clear english that is easy for all to understand. We need more of this type of writing to get through to the Average Joe who's confused on these issues. It totally destroys the smoke and mirrors the * crew use to baffle so many.

[donheld]

11. I also want a divorce

the sooner the better.

[aquart]

12. They were "exactly lying" from where I stood.

They said they knew where they were, right? They didn't, right? What part of that was not a lie?

[BlueEyedSon]

13. "Governing by manufactured crises since 2001." nt

[livvy]

14. Another great article by Krugman.

I wish this guy could get more airtime. He does a great interview also.
Glad you posted this. You beat me to it! I wonder if it would do any good to write to different MSM to suggest they invite him to speak? This is going to get to be a bigger issue with time. It might be worth it to put a bug in the MSM ear on who knows a lot about the issue. I also found this article in the Times this morning. I haven't had time to read the entire article, but from what I did read (just the first couple of pages) it seems to support the rational side of the issue...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html?ex=1107047525&ei=1&en=d8f55686fc445cc1

A Question of Numbers

January 16, 2005
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN

THE CONSERVATIVE NEW DEAL

snip>But in this 70-year struggle, no other conservative has
ever come as close to transforming the program as George W.
Bush. He is making Social Security reform, including a
partial privatization, a centerpiece of his second term. If
the most ardent ideologues have their way, such a reform
would be a first step toward a wholly new approach to
retirement security -- one that would set aside the notion
of collective insurance and guaranteed minimums for that of
personal investing and responsibility.

This could do more to reverse the New Deal, and even the
Great Society, than Goldwater, Stockman and Reagan ever
dreamed of. ''We call it a conservative New Deal,'' says
Stephen Moore, author of ''Bullish on Bush: How George W.
Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger.'' In
Moore's words, it will be a fundamental shift ''from an
entitlement society to an ownership society.'' The key to
this transformation, according to a generation of
conservative thinkers and crusaders, is reducing the size
and changing the nature of Social Security, which now pays
benefits of half a trillion a year, and which will only
grow bigger as America grows older. >much more

[yellowcanine]

15. Get in line now and avoid the rush when civil war erupts in Iraq.

[question everything]

16. Can also be found on the San Diego Union Tribune

where registration is not required (yet)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050119/news_lz1e19krugman.html