''Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.''

? As I recall, Pres. Bush stated that Iraq had no nukes, but might be trying to develop them.

What pundits like Krugman miss entirely is that we were not concerned about Iraq 'taking over the world'. What made them dangerous was not their power, but their instability.

And as I recall there has already been enough fissile material found to make 100 dirty bombs. The regimes connections with international terror organisations are now well established, both prior to the conflict and as the result of evidenciary documentation found in its aftermath. And the regime was actively training these groups in the use of WMD.

Even before the start of the conflit we knew that the regime was a state sponsor of terrorism, financing attacks in the phillipines and Israel. The use of such terrorist organisations as delivery mechanism for weapons of mass destruction meant that Iraq had to be dealt with.

100 dirty bombs? That's 1 each for every State of the US and still enough to for a tour of Europe. Oh - "But those aren't true W.M.D.'s..." - sure.

Simon nails it.

This war was noit about possession, per se, it was about capability and will. It's now clear that Iraq was working hard on the capability, and had the will.

Krugman puts "mushroom cloud" in quotes, as if this really were a quote of President Bush stating that Iraq would detonate a nuclear weapon in the US. I recall no such statement from Bush. What is Krugman quoting here?

I'm still waiting for Enron's Krugman to admit he wrong about Sami al Arayan, the professor who blows up students. Waiting...

Thanks

I had forgotten to delete this link from my Favorites list. Now that the war is "over" and the remaining readers are just dupes and dopes...I am outta here.....just like Dennis Miller in the old days before he went off his meds and left therapy

Thanks

I had forgotten to delete this link from my Favorites list. Now that the war is "over" and the remaining readers are just dupes and dopes...I am outta here.....just like Dennis Miller in the old days before he went off his meds and left therapy

Krugman doesn't say No war. He says that Bush lied to the US people. If true, is this ok with you?

It seems pretty clear now that the administration purposefully misled the American people. I remember that polls showed that like 75% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Also 75% believed Saddam was close to having nucleur weapons. Bush encouraged us to believe these things, which the administration knew to be untrue.

In fact, the ABC article Krugman quotes says that the real reason for the war was:
" The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope."
That's a good enough reason for me. But maybe war requires lies. I'd rather they came right out and told the truth.

Just as newshound chose to extract the one piece that most proved his point, let me furnish the piece that most makes my point, and Krugman's as well:

"Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?"

Many of us who supported the legality of the war and maybe even the neo-conservative goal of remaking the Middle East, however feasible this may be or may not be, are also very strongly opposed to the way the current administration sold the war, which was deceitful and many times flat out incompetent.

sigh..... NO we are not a democracy, Krugman should know that! We NEVER were! We're a Republic, that means we DON'T make every decision and our elected representatives DON'T have to get an OK for every decision, we DON'T have to know as much about everything as people who's JOB it is.

And I'm supposed to assume Krugman has any credibility on non-economic topics because...

Just like I'm supposed to assume that Chomsky has any bearing to speak on anything outside of linguistics, yeah, right.

Frankly, they both seem pretty well incompetent even in their specialties given their predilection for ignoring facts that aren't in accord with their ideology.

Sorry to see Buck go, I wanted to see if he would ever learn how to write a coherent sentence. But, I don't get the argument over the selling of the war. GWB's proposition was that, "...here's all the things we suspect about this regime, we have good reason to suspect these things, and we want to pacify the region, and we want to retaliate against terrorism in general, and we think we can win at an acceptable, worthwile cost." At least, that's the message I heard. And so far, he's been plenty right enough for any sane, reasonable person. Krugman and the like just want their people back in the White House, that's all. They'd sell the victory down the river in a minute to hurt GWB, reason and truth and the good of the nation don't matter spit.

You are right Buddy. And good Americans that they are....they now begin cheering that the economy goes to hell. Isnt that special?!! I'm glad Buck got his ass out of here, he needed to crawl in that hole with Hillary. She ranted so much last night, I think she has become truly personis non vaginis to most Americans. Man was she shrill...its getting to her.....if we all chant BUSH BUSH....she'll fo crazy and then take us all to court for lewd conduct......of course, thinking we wanted her..BAD

Buddy you are obviously an intelligent person with valuable ideas and lots to say, your posting on the utopians is almost perfect, but's what's with the personal attacks? You just called Krugman a traitor to the US! He is certainly an effective spokesman for a certain point of view you disagree with, but why state that liberals (there I used the word) would "sell ... the good of the nation"??

Excellent to highlight the evil that well-intentioned people may do in the name of some unrealistic ideal. Especially since utopian idealism will never disappear, it is a normal even healthy part of political life. It is born afresh with every crop of young people who question why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. We punish people for their actions, not for their ideas.

If one cannot criticise the president without being vilified, that is very unhealthy. It is bad for our country. You'ld prefer a one-party system?

It's not good politics either. I guess the Dixie Chick embroblio turned more people toward Dem rather than Repub, quiet people who weren't aware of the scary attack dogs.

Colin Powell and President Bush said that they were absolutely certain that Iraq had WMDs. Not had the potential. That they HAD WMDs, and that this was an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

If there are no WMDs in Iraq, then they were lying about the main reason to go to war. It's that simple.

Nothing's far when one wants to get there.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: