Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site