Where's the Apology?(Major Dry Heave Alert)

N Y Times ^ | 01/30/2004 | PAUL KRUGMAN

[Phlap]

It is a fact theat if not for Monica Clinton would have taken out Sadam in '98 and Paul and the trest of the looney left press would have been in lock step with him. What a bunch of hypocrats.

As an aside if you look at the political reporting in late '97 and up until Monica the democrats were going to take back controll of the house and senate. Ha ha.

[MJY1288]

Paul Krugman is just another Liberal scumbag that GWB has driven over the edge. Krugman's rantings are that of deranged man

[untenured]

It's always a shame to see a man slowly lose his mind in public.

[Gefreiter]

"If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy..."

Martyr complex. Don't flalter yourself, Krugman. And you seem to have forgooten that the UN itself reported time and again that Iraq HAD WMD, which is why the UN teams were there in the first place!!!!!!

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Saddam Hussein made fools of the United Nations and much of the world for 12 years.

Fooling time is over.

Some of the fools continue to be fooled, however.

Sad how their hatred of Bush supercedes their sanity.

Only Joe Lieberman shows a little common sense.

[highlander_UW]

Instead, he got rid of accountability.

What do they mean "got rid of accountability? That would imply that Clinton was accountable. And yet Clinton was impeached and still remained in office. Clinton handed off an economy heading into a decline and yet Bush is blamed. Clinton passed on Bin Laden 3 times and yet Bush is the one to clean up the worldwide mess of terrorism when Clinton could have eliminated a significant proponent. Accountability clearly was NOT an element of Clinton's regime and yet the NYT is now blaming Bush. Idiots all.

[Mudboy Slim]

Krugman's a Clymer...MUD

[the_Watchman]

"accountability" is the new mantra of the left.

I just got back from the U.K. where the BBC is attacking Blair's Iraq war support. Apparently, there was a shortage of flack jackets. One soldier wrote home that he had to give up his jacket for someone in a more forward position. After the soldier without the flack jacket was killed, his wife was on the news constantly demanding "accountability" for the shortage of jackets.

For every person who dies in Iraq, someone must step forward and take responsibility! [Of course, let's just ignore which side usually votes against military expenditures to allow the stockpiling of things like flack jackets during times of peace.]

[the_Watchman]

BTW: where was the accountability for that Aspirin factory which was blown up a few years back?

[kylaka]

Krugman is vile. He ought to take a look over yonder in BBC land. Do you think he'll do the honorable thing and follow suit? Never. He demands an apology. How downright liberal of him.

[JoJo Gunn]

The first sentence is telling, since there seems to be another small storm brewing over a NYT piece.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068340/posts

[Abynormal]

Here's the apology: Paul, sorry that I ever read anything you wrote.

[Callahan]

Why doesn't this clown blame Saddam for not turning his pockets inside out despite endless opportunities to do so. Oh right...Krugman.

[spodefly]

[Pompah]

I have a rather long list of things marked "DON'T BOTHER".


The NY Times is somewhere near the top of that list.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Iraq, he now admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such weapons.

4th sentence in, and he's already made his first lie.

That's got to be an "Ignorant Leftist Media" record somewhere.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - Sour grapes!

[Richard Axtell]

Krugman is juvenile in his analysis, as always. He is part of the problem, at least ideologically. The previous administration had access to exactly the same information that Krugman distorts here, and failed to act on it. As a result of Clinton's calculated inaction and vacillation, we all suffered the one trillion dollar hit on our economy, and the loss of 3000+ innocent civilians that was the Islamofascist cabal's attack on the US... 9/11. It easily could have been prevented, had Clinton acted upon any number of leads and opportunities that were literally handed to him. He chose not to, out of political expediency. He knew the dangers of actually "doing something" about terrorism, and chose instead his standard procedure of talking about it, and doing very little. Combine this with clear ineptitude and his moral cowardice, and there is little wonder why Osama Bin Laden was encouraged in his plan to destroy the World Trade Center, completing the job first botched by his and Saddam's first effort in 1993.

What we see here is Presidential campaign year rhetoric, not reasoned analysis of the realities of the War on Terrorism. As a defense analyst, Krugman is little more than a political shill. He repeats the illogical and already discredited campaign one liners of Dean and Kucinich, and then swallows them whole. If Bush knew there were no WMD, then Clinton did too. Gore did too. Kerry did too. Anyone who got the high level briefing about US WMD intel, had the same information to work with that the president acted upon. And there is the difference. Bush actually did something. He actually tried to defend the nation. Clinton talked, and did little if anything else. Thus, we had the WTC disaster, and Saddam continued with his "wait out the sanctions" strategy, counting on the useful idiots in the West, like Krugman, and his paid spokesmen, like Galloway and Ritter.

Krugman is counting on the ignorance of facts, and dim power of reasoning his supporters must be equipped with, in order to argue that Bush owes us an apology. He does not take into account the removal of Saddam, the drastic change in attitude and policy of Libya, and and the softening in stance of Iran and North Korea, as positive outcomes of the Iraq battle in the War on Terror. He fails to recognize that there even IS a War on Terror. He fails to honestly recount what Kay actually said. He fails on all counts. If Krugman was national security advisor today, Saddam would still be in power, the "sanctions-in-name only" would be virtually defunct, and the WMD production labs Kay found evidence of, would gear up to begin the production of next years "Al Qaida Surprise". But that is next year, too far into the future to care about. Much like the attitude Clinton expressed when he failed to act upon any of the 3 reported opportunities he was offered custody of Osama Bin Laden. Krugman will deny any accountability when more Americans die as a result of restoration of Clinton's head-in-the-sand approach to anti US and anti Western terrorism. Thus, accountability will not exactly be a concern of his, only the political future of the leftist Democrat Party. Where will his apology be for putting political expediency ahead of national security, as always?

[RebelBanker]

4th sentence in, and he's already made his first lie.
That's got to be an "Ignorant Leftist Media" record somewhere.

Not hardly! Krugman usually starts lying in the first sentence.

On second thought... Did you mean that it is a record that he managed three sentences without lying?

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Here's your apology, Mr. Grumpy pants!