Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman: "Bush lied us into war." (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The liars are still lying (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfarrah, linkage, chira2, kurt, marina, Lepanto

    Do you people really think Afghanistan and Iraq and the 'covert' bombing of Somalia and G-d knows where else were all "W"?

    Why is the current administration so confidently drawing their 'red lines' when anyone who's been paying attention knows that 'classified' info wrt WMD is as reliable as a fart in the MIC-dominated economy?

    Or are we just doing a bit of self-righteous nostalgia here?

    •  I'm as willing as the next person to (18+ / 0-)

      criticize Dems for their hypocrisy in their conduct of foreign affairs and defense policy.

      But do you really think a President Gore would have invaded Iraq (assuming President Gore failed to prevent 9-11)???? A shit-load of innocent people have died and been injured and all for Bush's lies. Not misunderstandings or errors, lies.

      You can lay a lot at Dems' feet, but they did not control the Presidency when Operation Shocking and Awful went down.

      •  There is absolutely no way to know this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        but there was broad bi-partisan support for the Iraq invasion, and no one has YET spoken up in a meaningful way about our policy of extra-judicial global collateral-damage causing bombings(aka the 'drone war') that is only at best, a vestige of the Bush legacy of total spectrum dominance. Dare I say that drone war is still REVERED as some sort of innovation, along with the other Bush nonsense like the bloated DHS, Patriot act, etc etc etc.

        To many of us, it was 'obviously' a lie that took us into Iraq. But that really doesn't count when it comes to FP, or really, any ham-handed move that the corporate greedsters want to employ. To deny this is to deny reality. Even if the propaganda is only slightly 'truthy', our fine representatives have proven again and again that they are ready to go ALL IN, for bqhatevwr.

        •  Oh, I'm well aware of the perfidy of prominent Dem (0+ / 0-)

          like Gephardt and Daschle (and one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein).

          But since we know that the WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda nexus were all bullshit -- I knew as soon as I started looking into it in January 2002 -- one can presume that Gore and his cabinet would have also known it was all PNAC and Iraqi National Congress (remember Chalabi?) bullshit.

          So we're left with arguing that Gore would have pushed for an invasion of Iraq BASED ON LIES or whether he would have exercised restraint. I prefer the latter interpretation. The alternative is too horrifying to contemplate.

          •  What's the difference though? (0+ / 0-)

            Supporting it from the get-go, or supporting it after it became 'consensus', when he still had the option not to?

            •  There is a long tradition in American (6+ / 0-)

              political history of not criticizing a sitting Commander in Chief while combat operations are ongoing. I think Gore's restraint in criticizing Bush before March 20, 2003 stemmed from the same tradition that caused Gore to accept the SCOTUS decision of Dec. 2000, rather than refuse to accept it and create a constitutional crisis. In each case, Gore deferred to the stability provided by existing institutions and traditions. One can criticize him for that deference to tradition and I often do, but that's a far leap from saying that Gore,  had he held the reins of power, would have led the nation into war based on lies.

              That's the difference: Bush lied us into a war and Gore would not have done so.

              •  "Gore would not have done so" (0+ / 0-)

                Bucking the neocon line is pretty much the definition of not 'deferring to tradition'.

                Gore magically turning from a pumpkin into a gleaming carriage on the eve of his inauguration? Color me skeptical.

                •  What I've gleaned from President Obama (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  protectspice, poco

                  (though I've suspected as much all along) is that the people you think are in charge are just a front for the hidden powers that be (well, not so hidden, really).

                  So do I believe that a President Gore would have started an unnecessary war or two had he not been denied the presidency by SCOTUS?  Abso-friggin-lutely!  It may or may not have been Iraq, and Gore would likely have waged war "more intelligently" (which I think is something of an oxymoron because a war fought "more intelligently" is the war not fought), but, make no mistake, the powers that be wanted a war or two (because, for them, war is profit) and there would have been an unnecessary war or two regardless of the occupant of the White House.  I firmly believe that.

                  I'm sure that, following the innauguration of any new President, the MIC and the corporate moguls sit the new kid down and tell him/her the score.  "This is how its going to be, alright?"  We'll let you pick out the country, but there will be a war.  Make up a reason, if you have to, but war it will be.  The longer the better."  Why?  Because few things redistribute money upwards quite so quickly and significantly as war.

                  Now, there are certainly other issues that make a Democratic President far more desirable than a Republican one.  And Bush was certainly a national disaster and disgrace in everything he touched.  But, where the big game plan is concerned--i.e. stealing from the poor to give to the rich--both parties serve the same masters.

                  Bush absolutely lied us into war, but the lies were plenty transparent to anyone who cared to know, including Democrats in Congress.  Heck, I knew their lies were provably false from the get-go.  And my recollection was that a substantial portion of this country--pretty close to half--opposed the war until the complicit and corporate media ran their rah-rah sales campaign.  Would that have been any different under a President Gore?  I sincerely doubt it.  Is it truly just a coincidence that the war drums are suddenly beating for the Syrian conflict just as we're drawing down in Afghanistan?  I sincerely doubt it.

                  "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                  by costello7 on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 10:42:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  There's a major difference between supporting (5+ / 0-)

              something because you were told lies about it and supporting it knowing the truth.  In fact, that's the major problem with our political system in general.  You're allowed to lie outright to voters.  As a result, liars get into office, and then go around abusing their power, as could be expected of someone willing to lie their way into power in the first place.  It's one reason Supreme Court appointments should NOT be lifetime appointments, as it's been seen that several of our current appointees have seriously misrepresented themselves to get Congressional approval.

              And it happens all the time at the state level, with people pretending to be moderates to get elected, then going whole hog ideologue once they get elected.

              •  Yup.... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Freakinout daily, Laconic Lib
                It's one reason Supreme Court appointments should NOT be lifetime appointments, as it's been seen that several of our current appointees have seriously misrepresented themselves to get Congressional approval.
                Lies.  
                It's what you do to get ahead. If you don't do it, you'll be left in the dust by someone who does, and who will suffer zero repercussions for their prevarications and most certainly won't be led accountable for anything.
                Integrity and ethical behavior is what we're taught and then we see our leaders lie, even those on the SCOTUS lie to get appointed.  
                What's a kid to think?  Stay on the level, do your job, be responsible and you may get a middle-management job which may just about cover the bills.  And you will be held accountable for your work.  
                Or lie, and become a powerful mover and shaker in this best of all possible worlds, hey, you could even have a car-elevator, or have a Lie-berry of your very own.

                I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                by Lilyvt on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:34:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  There was broad bipartisan support (0+ / 0-)

          for letting the President do whatever he wanted, which was obviously a gross dereliction of duty but not quite the same as enthusiasm for invading Iraq per se ... It was basically political cowardice, inspired in part by the American public's embrace of "W" following 9-11.
           

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:30:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  According to President Gore, if he could have (4+ / 0-)

        gotten a green light from the UN, the answer is yes.

          We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.
        The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.
        And the truth is, he'd have been much more capable of getting that green light, what with not being an incompetent moron with no understanding of diplomacy.

        "Paid Activist" is an oxymoron.

        by JesseCW on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 01:32:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure what the provenance of the highlighted (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright, emelyn

          material is, since no dates or sources are cited.

          I'm assuming they are Gore's words, but I distinctly remember him openly criticizing Bush after the consequences of Operation Shocking and Awful had become manifest and it was clear that the entire operation was based on lies.

          Bluntly put, we're not talking about whether Gore supported the sitting Commander in Chief in a time of war, we're talking about whether Gore as Commander in Chief would have authorized an invasion based on lies. I prefer to think he would not have done so.

          •  Erm. Copy paste. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice, heybuddy

            It takes about seven point two seconds to copy paste any given sentence into the search engine of your choice.

            Gore was very clear that he believed the lies that Saddam was pursuing WMD, and very clear that he wanted to use force to remove Saddam.  He also argued that no new UN resolution was actually needed, but that it would be a good idea to get one so as to not alienate potential allies.

            This makes it clear

            I prefer to think he would not have done so
            that relating facts is a pointless exercise.

            "Paid Activist" is an oxymoron.

            by JesseCW on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 02:05:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your insulting reply elides the fact that you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eyesbright, emelyn, bryduck

              failed to source your quote. Somehow that's my responsibility?

              Do you seriously maintain that a President Gore would have had a White House Office of Special Plans and Iraq Working Group busily ginning up lies that could be fed to the movers and shakers in the elite and mass media, so as to make a case for war?

              I never dreamed I would have to defend Gore on this site, but your contempt for him and his bona fides rightly entitles one to ask why you are on this site and what purpose it serves for you.

            •  From your own comment.... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Positronicus, bryduck, Cedwyn
              Gore was very clear that he believed the lies that Saddam was pursuing WMD, and very clear that he wanted to use force to remove Saddam.
              Had Gore been President, he would have had the access to actually know that they were lies, because he wouldn't have been deliberately creating those lies, as the Bush administration did.  Given the ability not to have been told such lies, I think there's a strong chance he would have eschewed going to war, since that seems to be the basis for his belief in the need to do so.
        •  If we accept that, would we still have the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Positronicus

          war?

          I have no major beef with having removed Saddam from power, apart from the fact that in general, I tend to think the US shouldn't be using violence as a foreign policy tool.  The largest problem with the Iraqi war from a US-centric position was the continuation beyond the 'Mission Accomplished' point.  Over a decade of American lives and treasure wasted in a 'nation building' attempt, much of which wouldn't have been needed if we simply hadn't bombed Iraqi infrastructure into rubble in the first place.

          So do we have evidence that Gore would have gone beyond simply ousting Saddam, even if he would have decided to do that?

          •  Where are we getting this idea (0+ / 0-)

            that Gore was obsessed with Saddam?

            Gore would have no doubt gone to war in Afghanistan, which was the only logical target for response to the 9-11 attack since they were actually hosting Osama Bin Ladin--but I cannot see any reason to believe Gore would have started a war in Iraq. I would assume he would have maintained the no-fly zones and whatnot, but he wasn't the one who had to avenge his father's defeat (at the polls in 1992) by destroying Saddam.

            Of course the ideal would have been not to go to war at all, other than some sort of special ops to root out Bin Ladin and his gang, but the combination of popular anger and the military resources available made some kind of military reaction to 9-11 inevitable.

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:42:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  But much of the information Gore had (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Positronicus

          was the same info we had, which was manufactured or distorted by the Bush administration, so it's hard to tell what really would have happened. On the other hand, it's not true that everyone believed Saddam had either chemical or nuclear weapons, but those who didn't were marginalized.

          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:36:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's a heeping load of horseshit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heybuddy

        I was there. I watched Democrats stand united with Bush.

        https://www.youtube.com/...

        No Jesus, Know Peace

        by plok on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 01:59:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question before us is whether Gore would (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright, emelyn, fugwb

          ordered an invasion BASED ON LIES (Krugman's main point). I would like to think he would not have, that his fundamental decency would have asserted itself. As someone upthread note, though, we will never know for sure.

          •  Hogwash (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heybuddy

            Democrats, as a party, made a political decision to authorize Iraq war. It's what they do.

            No Jesus, Know Peace

            by plok on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 02:11:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Geesh Charles (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymous volanakis

            Am I the only one getting what you are saying? I was just scanning down the comments and picked up on this thread. HELL NO Gore would not have invaded Iraq. He would not have surrounded himself with a pack of war-hungry chickenhawk assholes. As prez he would have listened to the reports from the weapon inspectors. There would have been no Valarie Plame - yellow cake uranium and all that other back-stabbing lying bullshit.. What the hell don't people get in what you are saying? Did the Dems vote for dumbfuck jr's excellent adventure? Yeah they did. But all you're saying is you don't believe, as president, Gore would not have invaded without absolute just cause......

            "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

            by fugwb on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 06:10:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Because they were lied to. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Positronicus

          When people we trust to at least tell the truth based upon the respect for the office they hold lie to us, we take actions that might differ from those we might take if they told the truth.

          Most people, prior to the Bush administration, at least vaguely assumed that when the President of the United States told you he had strong, actionable intelligence that some dictator was stockpiling and moving WMD around, he was telling the truth, and not merely making it up.

          Dems were 'not in the know'.  They had to make decisions based upon what they were told, and the old computer aphorism is true.  Garbage in, garbage out.  By feeding lies to Congress, Bush got their cooperation in a way he wouldn't have, had he told the truth.

        •  But they were not in control of the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck

          information management.

          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:38:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wonder whether NYT still has the policy (6+ / 0-)

      that they had at the time of the Iraq War: they forbade Krugman from using the words "lie" and "liar" in his columns.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 12:55:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (70)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Culture (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Memorial Day (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site