The Awful Truth (Krugman)

The New York Times ^ | 1/13/04 | Paul Krugman

[Egregious Philbin]

People are saying terrible things about George Bush. They say that his officials weren't sincere about pledges to balance the budget. They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11, that there was never any good evidence that Iraq was a threat and that the war actually undermined the fight against terrorism.

But these irrational Bush haters are body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks who should go back where they came from: the executive offices of Alcoa, and the halls of the Army War College.

I was one of the few commentators who didn't celebrate Paul O'Neill's appointment as Treasury secretary. And I couldn't understand why, if Mr. O'Neill was the principled man his friends described, he didn't resign early from an administration that was clearly anything but honest.

But now he's showing the courage I missed back then, by giving us an invaluable, scathing insider's picture of the Bush administration.

Ron Suskind's new book "The Price of Loyalty" is based largely on interviews with and materials supplied by Mr. O'Neill. It portrays an administration in which political considerations — satisfying "the base" — trump policy analysis on every issue, from tax cuts to international trade policy and global warming. The money quote may be Dick Cheney's blithe declaration that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." But there are many other revelations.

One is that Mr. O'Neill and Alan Greenspan knew that it was a mistake to lock in huge tax cuts based on questionable projections of future surpluses. In May 2001 Mr. Greenspan gloomily told Mr. O'Neill that because the first Bush tax cut didn't include triggers — it went forward regardless of how the budget turned out — it was "irresponsible fiscal policy." This was a time when critics of the tax cut were ridiculed for saying exactly the same thing.

Another is that Mr. Bush, who declared in the 2000 campaign that "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum," knew that this wasn't true. He worried that eliminating taxes on dividends would benefit only "top-rate people," asking his advisers, "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?"

Most startling of all, Donald Rumsfeld pushed the idea of regime change in Iraq as a way to transform the Middle East at a National Security Council meeting in February 2001.

There's much more in Mr. Suskind's book. All of it will dismay those who still want to believe that our leaders are wise and good.

The question is whether this book will open the eyes of those who think that anyone who criticizes the tax cuts is a wild-eyed leftist, and that anyone who says the administration hyped the threat from Iraq is a conspiracy theorist.

The point is that the credentials of the critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?

So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts. They have, however, already opened an investigation into how a picture of a possibly classified document appeared during Mr. O'Neill's TV interview. This alacrity stands in sharp contrast with their evident lack of concern when a senior administration official, still unknown, blew the cover of a C.I.A. operative because her husband had revealed some politically inconvenient facts.

Some will say that none of this matters because Saddam is in custody, and the economy is growing. Even in the short run, however, these successes may not be all they're cracked up to be. More Americans were killed and wounded in the four weeks after Saddam's capture than in the four weeks before. The drop in the unemployment rate since its peak last summer doesn't reflect a greater availability of jobs, but rather a decline in the share of the population that is even looking for work.

More important, having a few months of good news doesn't excuse a consistent pattern of dishonest, irresponsible leadership. And that pattern keeps getting harder to deny.

[OpusatFR]

"More important, having a few months of good news doesn't excuse a consistent pattern of dishonest, irresponsible leadership. And that pattern keeps getting harder to deny."

Doesn't he know that GWB is the president now, not Clinton?

[dirtboy]

Most startling of all, Donald Rumsfeld pushed the idea of regime change in Iraq as a way to transform the Middle East at a National Security Council meeting in February 2001.

Only startling to a completely uninformed idiot who doesn't realize that regime change in Iraq was established by Congress and the Clinton Administration as the policy of the country ... well before Bush came into office.

[expat_panama]

When I saw the name Krugman I wanted to refute an easy target, but now I see how hard it is to kick a pile of mush. My sister lives near Princeton and attends Krugman's lectures. She just raves about how wonderful he is.

jeesh!

[Dudoight]

This columnist's intellectual shortcomings are so transparent. He is the type of journalist whose uninformed non objective, biased blathering is the very source of NYT's diminished believability. He is one of the causes of the tarnish on a once great newspaper. Obviously change of management did not upgrade the quality of the newspaper's output.

[Southack]

"They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11..."

Indeed, but only an uneducated, leftwing moron would think that was a bad thing.

Everyone else, from President Clinton on down through to every Congressman who voted and passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 into law back then, knows that the God-Honest legal policy of the U.S. has been to effect regime change in Iraq due to Hussein's violations of his 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement, his violation of UN sanctions, and for his failure to prove that he actually dismantled and disposed of his 1991 WMD programs as he claimed.

Leave it to Krugman, however, to dream up such a biased perspective that the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act could be viewed as a Bush policy, as a "bad thing," and as a policy of insiders rather than the true picture of it being a Clinton policy, a good thing, and the official legal policy of the U.S.

But what the heck, Krugman's leftwing dementia is about the best that the NY Times has to offer these days. No doubt that his unquestioning supporters will numbly claim that Krugman is somehow "brilliant" for getting every single detail wrong on this topic.

Then they'll label all of Krugman's dissenters as "dumb" for daring to point out the obvious errors in his articles, such as those above.

SO HERE'S A CHALLENGE for all of you lurking DU'ers, Libertarians, and NY Times lovers: explain Bush's actions in Iraq in context with the legal, mandated 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

You see, because here's the rub: you can't admit such things because such facts as the Iraq Liberation Act expose your entire modern platform of dissent as being in error.

You can't phrase Bush's Iraq actions as being in synch with Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. You can't do any such thing factually because that would expose your beliefs as being fraudulent.

[TUX]

Truth from Awful Krugman? Surely thou jest.......

[TUX]

Truth from Awful Krugman? Surely thou jest.......

[Yardstick]

Exactly. The Iraq Liberation Act proves that the ouster of Saddam was an official goal of our national policy prior to the Bush admistration. It specified an end... Bush just changed the means and the timing of our realization of that end in light of 9-11.

As I recall, the Act passed unanimously in the Senate and by an overwhelming majority in the House, and prominent senators from both parties made comments on the record supporting the idea that Saddam was dangerous and had to go.

[Egregious Philbin]

SO HERE'S A CHALLENGE for all of you lurking DU'ers, Libertarians, and NY Times lovers: explain Bush's actions in Iraq in context with the legal, mandated 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

I'll let you guess which "lurker" I am.

If you read the 1998 act you cite, you will find that it makes no mention of going to war with Iraq. In fact, the very last sentence is: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

Section 4(a)(2) allows the President to provide military assistance "to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5" not to exceed a cost of $97 million.

Therefore the means by which the Act sought to effect liberation in Iraq was not invasion.

Leave it to Krugman, however, to dream up such a biased perspective that the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act could be viewed as a Bush policy, as a "bad thing," and as a policy of insiders rather than the true picture of it being a Clinton policy, a good thing, and the official legal policy of the U.S.

I also might add that Krugman makes no mention of the Act, and therefore doesn't lie about it. The supposed implications of his statement are your creation. All this, and not a mention of O'Neill's comments...

[Southack]

"If you read the 1998 act you cite, you will find that it makes no mention of going to war with Iraq."

No, you have to be more careful with your words.

The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act does not authorize a U.S. military invasion, but it *does* authorize acts of war such as funding domestic Iraqi opposition (to Hussein) groups.

It took a *later* act in 2002 for Congress to authorize using the U.S. military against Iraq.

[Southack]

"Therefore the means by which the Act sought to effect liberation in Iraq was not invasion."

Which is probably why my comments regarding the ILA of 1998 also refrained from discussing that Act's authorized means.

The important aspect of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act isn't its means ($98 million for funding anti-Hussein groups).

No, the ILA's important aspect was the OFFICIAL U.S. Policy that it established: regime change in Iraq as an overt, open, active U.S. foreign policy objective.

[Southack]

"I also might add that Krugman makes no mention of the Act, and therefore doesn't lie about it. The supposed implications of his statement are your creation. All this, and not a mention of O'Neill's comments..."

Nonsense. For one thing, Krugman lies by omission. He doesn't mention the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act even though it is entirely relevent to official U.S. policy on Iraq prior to (and even after) 9/11/2001.

That the Bush White House would follow established U.S. law to effect the regime change demanded in Iraq as official U.S. policy per the Clinton Administration's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act should surprise no one. That they began making such plans prior to 9/11/2001 should only surprise those who have underestimated and misrepresented President Bush at every turn.

1998 came before 9/11/2001 people. Sheesh...

[Egregious Philbin]

No, the ILA's important aspect was the OFFICIAL U.S. Policy that it established: regime change in Iraq as an overt, open, active U.S. foreign policy objective.

Now you're being more careful with your choice of words. But still:

"They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11"

That statement makes no mention of the 1998 Act. In fact, citing the act does nothing to discredit Krugman. The Act supports regime change in Iraq by supporting anti-Hussein groups, not invasion. I don't know how much more careful I can be with my choice of words.

[gipper81]

Krugman Truth Squad

[wayoverontheright]

The question is whether this book will open the eyes of those who think that anyone who criticizes the tax cuts is a wild-eyed leftist,

No, in light of the fact that no one can refute that they have worked to revive the economy, I think they're just delusional idiots.

Tax cuts can harm the economy about as much as deposits can harm your bank account.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror?

The "report" in question was the work of ONE visiting professor, ie it is one man's opinion. Krugman makes it sound like the consensus of a body of military experts.

[Southack]

No, the Iraq Liberation Act established an official U.S. policy in addition to providing a means (i.e. $98 million in funding) for effecting that foreign policy goal.

Just because the money was or wasn't spent has no bearing. Nor did the Act expire after 1998.

No, the official U.S. policy of effecting regime change in Iraq REMAINED, and every President from 1998 on was bound by law to plan, consider, pay lip service to, and perhaps even directly effect that policy goal.

What the 1998 Act did was to make it a crime for a U.S. President to fail to perform due diligence toward effecting regime change in Iraq.

That's the law. Our official foreign policy goal was legalized to be regime change in Iraq, per that 1998 Act that remains on our books to this very day.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp