Smear Without Fear (NY Slimes/Krugman Hit Piece on President Bush)

NY Times ^ | 4/2/04 | Paul Krugman

[Lancey Howard]

Wow, thanks for that!
Surprise, surprise - - Krugman is another NY Times liar.

[Ruth A.]

Thank you. I found the reading rather pointless, too.

[prairiebreeze]

Or are the Dems and their media handmaidens disappointed that the White House hasn't touched Clarke's "personal life?" So Krugman is trying to do it for the WH.

Very possible.

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

Excellent find! Thanks.

Prairie

[fenway]

Thanks for expressing the 'boss;black woman' angle. Another opinion could be that a predator priest 'comforted' him in his time of grief. I'm assuming that he, (Clarke),lived in a Boston neighborhood and he does have a possible Irish surname.Let the Lib meltdown continue.....fenway

[hershey]

Yup, in wholesale panic, RATS are running around, biting themselves in the arse.

[an amused spectator]

I read somewhere else on the Web that it's always hard to decide whether Krugman is merely seditious, or overtly treasonous.

[cyncooper]

Krugman actually thinks CNN would defer and cater to the WH?

LOL

[cyncooper]

The whole NY Times staff has evidently gone simultaneously insane.

There was some piece I read this morning from them (the weekend magazine?) saying what a vicious campaign this was turning out to be and the one and only example they went on and on and on about was calling Kerry "French"!

I'm literally LOL at their idiotic ways.

[Verginius Rufus]

I haven't read much of Maureen Dowd and don't remember if she has ever had a good word for Bush about anything, but her juvenile high-school sort of cleverness just comes across as silly, whereas Krugman always seems deadly serious. I read somewhere that he has never said anything positive about Bush in any of his columns...not even the "Mussolini made the trains run on time" sort of trivial praise. This latest example of conjuring up a White House "smear" out of thin air sounds typical of him.

[cyncooper]

I mean, he generally laid off Clinton, who saw several serious terrorist attacks and had eight years to engage the enemy, but went after Bush who was in office barely eight months when 9/11 struck.

He's done more than that. I've pointed out on several threads the following:

Richard Miniter and Laurie Mylroie have written recent columns pointing out the factual errors in Clarke's book. Both pointed out a mighty peculiar one that has caught my eye and raised the alarm bells:

One of the '93 WTC bombers was an Iraqi and fled back to Iraq where he received a monthly stipend and a house. Clarke claims in his book that the Hussein regime jailed this guy.

Now, I am wondering why Clarke decided to paint Saddam Hussein as tough on crime here when the exact opposite was true--that he rewarded this terrorist.

As I said in my first comment on this, it appears Clarke is interested in polishing up the legacies of both Clinton AND Hussein.

BTW, this "error" alone ought to have raised the credibility issue big time with Clarke's book. But we know there is a mountain of other examples that also demonstrate the point.

[Edit35]

I think he (Clarke) simply couldn't stand that his boss was a black woman.

Bullseye. That was the very thing that streaked through my thoughts when it was revealed Clarke was demoted during the Bush Administration's first six months.

[mo]

Your observation serves to strengthen my concerns that Bubba and his wife were on the UN Food for Oil merrygoround....and that he was giving Saddam the same quid pro quo's that France and Germany were....would explain an awful lot IMHO