The War President

New York Times ^ | June 24, 2005 | Paul Krugman

[Fred911]

……The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.

…….And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Fred911]

Has Paul Krugman learned nothing from Dan Rather about "copies" of original documents?

[Agent Smith]

You are presuming that HE WANTS TO LEARN.

Now hush up!

There is a Republican President that needs to be destroyed!

[marty60]

He must not have got the memo that the docs are more than likely FAKE. But then we know the NYT standards are iffy at best. A copy of a copy of a conversation as related by a third party is ....well, FACT to the NYT and it's pathetic staff.

[expatpat]

Nobody "fixes" tickets in the UK. The word "fix" means either to set or to repair over there, not to do somethng underhanded.

[FlipWilson]

Do we really want him or the other libs to learn a damn thing? This is great stuff. The kookier they sound, the better.

[PureTrouble]

I think the Liberals are holding onto the memo because it was typed from an original and also people very high up in the UK government have confirmed that the basis of the document is true.

Not sure how much of a case they have that way, but its always prudent to watch your enemy.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Please use only the original published title. Thanks.

[Sivad]

Two questions come to mind, immediately. First, how do
the Krugmans of the media world account for the fact
that prior to the war President Bush consistently
offered Saddam Hussein the opportunity to modify his
practices with regard to WMD inspections? Second,
why are opinion polls worth citing now when they
weren't when public opinion was very solidly behind
the President?

[steve8714]

The UK gov has not commented one way or the other, which as we know the media takes as confirmation. Anonymous sources may have confirmed, which is worthless.

[federal]

There has not been any confirmation of those alleged memos, Although both spokesmen for Tony Blair and President Bush deny that they had yet to decide if a military invasion would be required at that point.

They point to resolution 1441 as proof and if that's not enough President Bush on the eve of the invasion told the world and Saddam that his overthrow could be avoided if he left the country voluntarily, the media and the libtards conveniently always fail to remember that fact.

There is no case there is only a conspiracy theory for the tin foil groupies.

[hermgem]

The memo is a Dan Rather, long living, unsupported by facts, it must be true even it's a fake.
We now found out that this reporter destroyed the original but showed re-typed copies.
Makes no difference for the NYT, it must be true based on their circumstantial discovered evidence.
Never mind these UN resolutions, or asking Hussein to go to other places.
A point to make: Hussein strongly, unshakably believed that Putin, Chiraq, Schroeder, Annan, would be powerful enough to keep Bush at bay.
And so did the NYT. Ever misjudged NYT?
Here comes one that does what he says, in contrast to Clinton who decided based on polls, and that's what's at the very base of their misjudgements.
What it is: another NYT belated self serving whitewash and justification.

[iconoclast]

There has not been any confirmation of those alleged memos

Why doesn't someone ask Sir Richard?

[jimmybeem]

Well they can't admit they intended to invade at that time, although the evidence seems to indicate they had no intention of avoiding war. To be honest, I don't think that telling Saddam to leave voluntarily was a serious request, and the media probably knows that.

[federal]

Bullshit! President Bush went on worldwide TV and said if Saddam leaves the USA wouldn't militarilly remove him. The media has done everything to deceive the American people during this entire war, I don't give a squat what they "know" what they should do is report the facts and not their opinions dressed up as facts.


You can believe what you want but to be honest I don't take you opinion seriously.

[perfect stranger]

Quit with the profanity.

[Texasforever]

Quit with the profanity.

You may want to check your tag-line

[perfect stranger]

You may want to check your dictionary.

'hell' can be found listed in most dictionaries and is not generally considered profanity.

[TitansAFC]

The thing that always gets me about Krugman is:

Isn't this guy an Economics Professor? Didn't the NYTimes hire him for Economic Op-Ed? I think 90% of his Op-Eds are actually political hack attacks against Bush which have little or nothing to do with the Economy.

Sure, he give his occasional Socialist blather, but mostly in the last five years it has been the "Bush lied" propaganda.

I mean seriously.......If he's not an Economics Professor writing about Economics, then he's a nobody ranting on about his political beefs, in which case he should be forced to write letters to the editor like the rest of us.

[Teplukin]

Krugman's article is sillly. All of us Freepers were saavy enough to appreciate that WMD and ties to Al Queda were not the basic reason for the war. This was a war of liberation, intended to bring liberation to the Iraq people & avenge Saddam's insolence towards Bush I!

The fact that Freepers know this - and that Krugman iss confused by various references to WMD - says a lot about Krugman's intelligence.

I think it best that all true Freepers try to avoid reading Krugman in the future.