Paul Krugman- A must read today

[59millionmorons]

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?ex=1081029877&ei=1&en=7402f8a2197b54fd

[phillybri]

1. Kick

:kick:

[jonnyblitz]

2. good editorial.

I am surprised Krugman is still allowed to write at the NYT.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. He is too high-profile to be booted

Sh!t would fly in all directions if they did that.

[Bozita]

3. I agree. Krugman is must read stuff.

Today's column is no different.

[YIMA]

4. good read

[DemNoir]

5. That makes one

I guess he is the token truth teller on the NYT staff. They need one just for the novelty.

[VolcanoJen]

6. Krugman, as always, was excellent.

He makes a crucial point that debunks the "book motives" Republican meme in the last two paragraphs:

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.

[gristy]

7. Very good

This sentance troubles me, though:
Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money.

I wish he could have come up with a better refutation of that charge. It seems to me that just because someone does something for money doesn't mean someone is going to lie to maximize the amount of money. We all have jobs, right? Many of us own businesses, right? Many of us are writers, right? Does that make us liars? Of course not.

Admittedly, the above doesn't fit in Krugman's article.

[Killarney]

8. I'm in lust with Paul Krugman

I just finished reading his book last night (fantastic) and now I read this kick-ass column. He ROCKS! He's one of the few left that writes in the face of the threat of retribution.

[Spazito]

9. Krugman continues to impress me more and more...

he cuts to the chase in his columns. Given the "right" slant most of the NYT seems to have lately, his column is even more important than previously, imo.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. And these cowardly character assassins...

I'm reminded as I listen to the 9/11 hearings, will not even testify under oath on an issue of life-and-death importance to the nation.

[gottaB]

11. pka

[oc2002]

12. One question that is unclear on that, or Clarke.

" The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar" Krugman.

Clarke was the Clinton's Czar and Bush demoted him upon taking office? Is that right?

If sow, he wasn't privy to the level of information or power he had during the Clinton years?

[Spazito]

15. No, he was not "demoted" until after 9/11, until then he held the...

same position as he did during the Clinton administration.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. kick

*