Must Read Krugman Today:

[chiburb]

Mods: I know this is in Editorials, but I think it deserves the wider audience of GD too. I know you allow some cross-posting, I hope this qualifies...

Snip:

On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character — his "honor and integrity" — so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic — that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.

In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/opinion/10KRUG.html

[Postman]

1. Keep telling it like it is Mr. Krugman. Someone at NYT has to.

This administration is criminal beyond belief.

How dare they even mention Clinton's past when they have this treasonous administrations record in front of us. And I'm no fan of Bill Clinton.

[bryant69]

5. Well what's funny

Is them boo-hooing about the lowered tone. About how awful it is that we don't like President Bush all that much, when they spent EIGHT YEARS trashing Clinton. You have mainstream conservatives accusing Clinton of Rape, of Murder and of selling secrets to the Chinese. What have we accused President Bush of that even comes close to those accusations.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[phillybri]

2. Dead-on as usual....

Fuck the double standards...

[fencesitter]

3. Krugman is always a must read

"But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided."

And destroyed the credibility of the US worldwide, weakening the ability of the anti terrorism campaign and leaving us more feared than the terrorists themselves (in some places).

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Very socratic article.

Krugman, don't accept free drinks from strangers, please!

[mumon]

6. DUDE YOU DON'T EVEN GET IT!

Last week new NYT columnist David Brooks (formerly one of Rupert Murdoch's bitches at the Weekly Standard) had a "tsk tsk" article about the "tone" that liberals had taken toward "Nazi Fuck Face" (one of my favorite terms of endearment for Resident Putsch.) Brooks "regretted" he was one of the fascist bitches working for Murdoch, as he so eloquently put it in last week's Times. (OK, he was more pseudo-high brow, but his rectum was still sore, I'm sure.)

Paul's just slappin this used media bitch like a pimp who's been shorted for 2 days in a row.

[chiburb]

7. Kick for late arrivals...n/t

.

[kentuck]

8. Good article!

<snip>
But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.

<snip>
In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.

..more

[mumon]

9. Kicking again for late arrivals

CLASSIC reply to those who complain about dissing our "president."

[msmcghee]

10. But unfortunately, such scholarly analyses . .

. . will never be heard of or noticed by the "morans in the middle". They are still in love with the gunslinger from Texas. And I think Carl Rove has the power to keep them that way - all it would take is one more small terra'ist attack or even a close call and those flags would be flying in the breeze again from all those pickup trucks.

Added on edit: I can't imagine any "appeal to reason" that would overcome that. Any such attempts will be treated by the RW media (Rove) as just more dem hand-wringing over ethics and other obscure wussy crap - when what we need to be doing is nuking some more "rag-heads".

I'm starting to think that we're wasting resources on the morans. Maybe we should be directing our message to moderate and/or thinking repukes - who must be getting uneasy with this administration's policy and actions - might be worth a look.