A Krugman homerun . . .and if he's as prescient as the war naysayers were in 2002 and 2003, then perhaps he's given us our likely 2008 ticket.
And--it's a great, magnificent team.
Krugman writes and I agree, that anyone who supported the war isn't fit to lead this country.
Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, "The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers." Among those the article mocked was a "war novelist" named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.
The article’s title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true. And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper’s account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war — a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats — gave no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient.
Here's a link to an un-firewalled column. You can read the entire Krugman column for free.
http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/...
He's got an honor roll of Democrats and Republicans who opposed the war when, if you recall, opposing George Bush's madness was an act of great courage and personal sacrifice.
The Krugman honor roll includes, George Father Bush, Brent Scrowcroft, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, and John Spratt.
And . . . the the 2008 dream team? Al Gore, the man who won the 2000 election and Barack Obama, the child of an immigrant from Africa.
Al Gore, September 2002: "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: "I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Krugman is correct--or mostly correct. People make mistakes. I love it when someone who has erred badly stands up, apologizes and moves decisively forward. It takes real character. But sadly, what we have from most 2008 aspirants is pandering political double speak. Or they half-heartedly hop-on to the "told you so" train before it fully leaves the station. This shit isn't going to work any longer.
I'd sleep well with a Gore/Obama ticket. Damn substitute no brain for two brains, just on that alone, we have a winner.
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war — or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly — should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security.
And yes, I know Gore has said he's not running. Stay tuned.