Paul Krugman: Wrong is Right

Paul Krugman explains why Hilary Clinton and others should have followed John Edward's lead and admitted they were wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution:

Wrong Is Right, by Paul Krugman, Admit Errors Commentary, NY Times: Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error...

The answer ... in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation.

For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. ...

The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those ... words... “I was wrong” matter so much to the Democratic base.

The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn’t sound like another George Bush..., someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

And there’s another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards ... is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom..., which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security... By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.

In truth, it’s the second issue, not the first, that worries me about Mrs. Clinton. Although she’s smart and sensible, she’s very much the candidate of the Beltway establishment... Still, she’s at worst a triangulator, not a megalomaniac; she’s not another Dick Cheney.

I wish we could say the same about all the major presidential aspirants.

Senator John McCain, whose reputation for straight talk is quickly getting bent out of shape, appears to share the Bush administration’s habit of rewriting history to preserve an appearance of infallibility. Last month he asserted that he knew full well what we were getting into by invading Iraq: “When I voted to support this war,” he said on MSNBC, “I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough...”

But back in September 2002, he told Larry King, “I believe that the operation will be relatively short,” and “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.”

And as for Rudy Giuliani, there are so many examples of his inability to accept criticism that it’s hard to choose.

Here’s an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for,” the then-mayor ordered the ads removed...

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.

But back to Mrs. Clinton’s problem. For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don’t think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake. And that playbook has led them into a political trap.

_________________________
Previous (2/16) column: Paul Krugman: The Health Care Racket
Next (2/23) column: Paul Krugman: Colorless Green Ideas

Comments

[maria]

If you admit you were mistaken, then by implication you were duped, perhaps even brainwashed, and that might be fatal politically. Who wants a President who is easily duped? I mean we have one now (duped by the Neocons, by Cheney, etc., and an assorted host of others) and see where it has gotten him. LOL.

(Now, dearest MG, I have tried and tried and tried to "think smarter" and this is the best I can do. Will your superintelligent excellency tell me where I have fallen down? Pretty please. LOL)

[Movie Guy]

maria,

A pretty good post.

President Bush is in way over his head. But he believes that what he is doing in Iraq is the proper course of action, mistakes by those below his level or not (present day mistakes). So, he will hold on for a while longer, but the decisions going forward should demonstrate a different course of action after September 2007. Seven months and counting.

[maria]

Is McCain getting smarter or just more confused?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/
2007/02/17/politics/p122748S61.DTL

[maria]

"A pretty good post"

Oh thank you, kind and all wise sir. That crumb of approval has made my week.

Seu humilde servidor.

[maria]

Dearest MG:

Let me try this one for your approval.

Israel has three, perhaps four, options going forward.

1. It can adopt a "one state" solution in which case the Zionists will be outnumbered and outvoted by the Arab Palestinians.
2. It can go further along with the apartheid solution in which case it turns the Palestinians into a permanent subordinate population subservient to the master race.
3. It can opt to exterminate or drive out all the Arabs from Palestine so it can take complete possession of the area.
4. It could permit a Palestinian state but one so ridiculously structured (cut up into semi isolated bits and pieces) that it would be obvious to the world how Nazi like Israel really is.

Now dear, kind sir: is that too a "pretty good" post? I wait breathlessly for your opinion. LOL.

[maria]

Hillary may have this object lesson in mind:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html
/opinion/2002654563_floyd30.html

[Movie Guy]

maria,

I don't expect any of those four options will be the final result. But I also don't know how the current rounds of discussions are progressing.

Only a somewhat related matter, I am more concerned with Scenario 3 under the following possibilities.

Six Escalation Scenarios Spiraling to World Nuclear War

This is the kind of stuff that makes the hair stand straight up.

[reason]

Maria,
surely though PK has a point, staying duped is far worse than being duped in the first place.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html

February 19, 2007

Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” ...

[Elvis]

If you admit you were mistaken, then by implication you were duped, perhaps even brainwashed, and that might be fatal politically.

The whole sales pitch of the Iraq war was by numbskulls for numbskulls. I'm sorry if some folks feelings are hurt, but any politico who voted to authorize this president to wage war should be lined up and stamped, "Unfit for office".

I was duped for about a month. I was frothing at the mouth waiting for orders. When those orders turned out to be, "Return to the malls, citizens." I should have taken the hint. But no, I kept on, itching to see justice. I was waving flags when the bombs started falling in Afganistan. That was another clue. B-52s in Afganistan? My fervor diminished. Iraq started to be mentioned. "What happened to Al-Queda?" I asked myself. All the equations were wrong. 9/11 + Bin Laddin = Iraq.

I was duped and hereby declare my uncadidacy for any office. Anyone who voted war powers to a pampered-rich-boy-draft-dodger-awol-vote-purger should do likewise and move over. Good bye Hillary. If I need a woman president, I'll vote for Pelosi or Cynthia McKinney.

[Barry]

If Hilary has shot herself in the foot, good. If the USA were to have Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for president, we could openly say that the Republic is dead.

[ken melvin]

Hear, hear. Bush is incapable of seeing that he is incapable. This calls for a caretaker government ala Howard Baker.

[Stormy Monday]

Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth

I saw Hillary Clinton’s DNC speech on C-span where she said if she was President we would have not gone to war in Iraq. Hillary and her husband had more information about why we shouldn’t have gone to war than any other Senator or Congressman.

Why did Clinton vote for a war she did not support? And if she voted for the war because of WMDs, had we found them, how would anything be any different in Iraq? If Hillary supports attacking Countries over WMDs, does she want to attack North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria…?

[Bruce Webb]

Elvis the equation was more subtle than that.

As you point out if you believed that Bush would actually operate in some reality based continuum and not just get his war on come what may, well you really were not paying attention. The Iraqi War Resolution was structured in a way that unconstituionally shifted the power to declare war from Congress to the Presidency and so should have been resisted on Separation of Powers alone, not to mention the fact that Saddam was not a particular strategic threat to the US to begin with. But Bush demanded to be given the keys to the car, to be the "Decider" and Congress went along. Bad Congress!

But on the surface all the War Resolution did was authorize Bush to threaten military action if Saddam didn't admit UN Inspectors and cooperate in proving he had actually disarmed. Which he did.

Now I didn't expect that outcome. You can make a full case that Kerry and Clinton not expecting that outcome and voting to give war powers to Bush anyway was craven and something that needs to be apologized for at least and potentially disqualifying for the Presidency. But if you ignore the Bush Administration's hell bent desire to go to war come what may (yes that is pretty damn hard) the end result of the Iraqi War Resolution was Saddam admitting Inspectors and said Inspectors well on the way to proving conclusively that Iraq did not have Chemical and Biological weapons.

Now certainly you can argue that Kerry and Clinton were simply blind pigs that lucked on an acorn. That they were wrong to be right before they were wrong. Voting for the Iraqi War Resolution was a mistake, it put powers in the hands of a President who was not prepared to use those powers properly, and could not be counted on to react correctly if beyond any rational persons expectation Saddam actually blinked and admitted Inspectors.

But he did. I didn't expect that. I don't know anyone who did expect that. It doesn't excuse Kerry and Clinton for the choices they made, because nothing I have seen leads me to believe they expected that, But in pure point of fact the Iraqi War Resolution did exactly what on the surface it promised to do. It allowed the United States to use the credible threat of military power to force Saddam to prove that he had disarmed.

It worked and that vindicates Kerry and Clinton after the fact. We can argue about motive and opportunity all we want. But the reality is that only one man set himself up to be the 'Decider'. Bush demanded 100% of the credit for his decision. Well sometimes you got to regret what you wished for.

Like I said it is a subtle equation. But Clinton and Kerry did not send this country to war. Commander Codpiece did, after Saddam blinked and proved it unnecessary.

[Bruce Webb]

Stormy M

Absolutely right, and I'll have a hard time pulling the lever for Hillary.

But at the end of the day all of the responsibility for the blood is on the hands of GWB. He wanted this war. He openly claimed in early 2003 that not only had the decision to go to war not been made but that when that decision was made he was going to make it.

Should Clinton have handed Bush a loaded gun? No. But against anyone's expectation the Drunken Fratboy's waving the gun in the air actually worked. The Bad Guy surrendered. Bush decided to pull the trigger anyway. You can blame Clinton for handing over the gun, but she didn't decide to start blazing away regardless.

This is Bush's War. That is the way he wanted it from he beginning, that is the way he is getting it.

[Lafayette]

And, I am still waiting for Paul Krugman to explain the difference between an Adolph Hitler and a Saddam Hussein.

Tyranny, in the form of a genocidal maniac in power like Saddam, demanded immediate action. How many more Kurds beyond the 85,000 that he gassed or killed was acceptable? How many more Shiites beyond the 150,000? How about the 1 million who died in wars Saddam instigated. Whilst the world simply abided or even assisted.

Or, perhaps Mr. Krugman can explain how oil changed the political equation and American intervention in Iraq was a gross error? Had there been no insurgency and Iraq had developed into a functioning democracy, Bush would be walking on water ... and Mr. Krugman eating bitter apples. BIG little "ifs", those.

The ends may not justify the means. But, overthrowing a despot was good. The means by which it was done were inappropriate, inadequate and bungling. But, that does not mean that justice was not done to Saddam Hussein.

If there is no moral high ground in the matter of Iraq, then where is it? Darfour? Rwanda? Sierra Leone? North Korea? Where, Mr. Krugman?

[Bruce Webb]

"Tyranny, in the form of a genocidal maniac in power like Saddam, demanded immediate action. How many more Kurds beyond the 85,000 that he gassed or killed was acceptable? How many more Shiites beyond the 150,000? How about the 1 million who died in wars Saddam instigated. Whilst the world simply abided or even assisted"

You might want to set out some timelines. During most of that time and most of those deaths we were providing Saddam targeting information. Where was the "immediate action" back when he was actually engaged in large scale killings? How many of those Kurds and Shiites were already dead when Smiling Don Rumsfield was shaking Saddam's hand?

Not everything has been shoved down the Memory Hole.

Why Iraq and not Myanmar? Until you can explain why we picked this one country at this singular time to bog down our entire combat capability you can save some of the outrage.

Or are you saying "On to Rangoon!!"

[kotika]

USA is a country always at war over expansion of its influence, this is the historical destiny. Didnt US make war with Spain to gain Cuba and Philippines in the war of 1898? That war by the way was ostensibly in support of the Freedom movements in the respective countries. USA won the war , but those countries became permanently failed states.

Didnt we gain Panama canal by military force? Or
the whole of southwest from Mexico, or Louisiana Territories from France? All those actions are RIGHTLY viewed positively in american history, and so would the conquest of Iraq had it been successsful. Bush tried and lost, most of the loss being monetary (only a couple thousand american casualties).

The democtrats voting for the resolution knew these things full well, and they remain true even today. Think of how it would look , if Hillary apologized and came back three years later to ask congress to invade XXXX or YYYYY.

Why should she even want to be the president if you have to give up the fun to make war whenever you feel like... :-) (like every other american president before)

[richard]

Any foreign policy premised only on the use of force is doomed to fail. The arming of paramilitaries in Central and South America is coming back to haunt us, twenty years later. As for democracy in the Midele East, we give lie to the rhetoric by supporting a "democracy by invasion" in Iraq while then refusing to recognize real partisans of democracy in the occupied territories and in countries like Egypt. Being a powerful country with lots of money and gazillions of armaments a foreign policy does not make.

Hence the disaster that is Iraq. Our foreign policy is shallow and unworkable not because of the lack of resources but because of the unwillingness of this country to do the hard work of negotiating with allies, understanding local powers in their own terms and the willingness to compromise. Military force is not wrong per se, but to think of force before thinking of culture and economics and politics is to put the cart before the horse.

We won't stop creating disasters in places like the Middle East and Central America until we begin to understand this. As the sixties would have it, this is a "learning experience", and even if George is incapable of learning, I have hope that the country as a whole is capable of learning.

[Bruce Webb]

"But, overthrowing a despot was good. The means by which it was done were inappropriate, inadequate and bungling. But, that does not mean that justice was not done to Saddam Hussein."

I am really tired of this line of thought. We could have taken the same amount of money and many less lives and probably solved much of Africa's hunger problem.

Look if the goal was to do justice to Saddam we could have sent in CIA hit teams.

I knew Saddam was a monster. Clinton knew Saddam was a monster. Iraqi regime change was an official policy of our government. We get that. But ground invasion using a force about 50% of the size that your Army Chief of Staff testified would be needed was criminal stupidity.

Pleading after the fact that Saddam was a monster is to mistate the crux of the problem. Houston is plagued by cockroaches in the summer. Glassing over Houston by H-bomging it would solve much but not all of Houston's cockroach problem. Suffice it to say that I would not sign off on nuking Houston.

Bush wanted to take out Saddam in the worst way. He took out Saddam in the worst way, i.e. worst way possible. Apologists who think that my opposition to this war was rooted in ignorance can bite me. I saw this coming and said so in real time. The end result was not worth the predictable cost. Predictable because predicted. Too bad some people couldn't do the math.

[ken melvin]

Overthrowing the despot could have been done for change with the loss of few if any. This bastard wanted war.

[maria]

McCain has said that if the "surge" doesn't "work" there are no good options left. Well, it doesn't appear to be working, so.........I adore seeing McCain in a pickle. Hoist by his own petard, or whatever. Exposed for the fool he is, etc., etc. Kiss the Presidency goodbye guy, you might as well drop out now.

[calmo]

This is the fieldFor the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes.where Krugman makes his pitch and apparently strikes Hillary out. And somewhat unfortunately in my view as the pitch needs to be examined a little more closely and the hitter not so much.
That pitch:
Krugman's centerpiece "heckofajob (Brownie)" was just a tad dusty/sensational for my (not so impeccable) housekeeping standards. Rummy was declared to be doing a fantastic job the day before the election result, a couple of days before his replacement was named. When a few brave reporters queried the President about his former statements, they were told the statements were "aspirational".
It became clear that the media cannot tolerate even the accusation that the President could stretch the truth. In this day and age, War Presidents are allowed executive privilege when it comes to truth.
This is what needs dusting off: statements issuing from The President are "aspirational" (beyond that dimension of being true or false that are reserved for the likes of Libby maybe but no further up the chain it appears).
[Does the media focus on what this trial lays bare: the abysmal state of our complicit press?]
What does it mean that statements of the sort, "_____ is doing a heckofajob.", are aspirational? It means they could be true and with a little prayin will be. As Krugman points out someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them. there is this handicap of never recognizing a mistake and building your future performance on some experience, but again this seems to me to be highlighting the wrong thing.
We are reduced to cheerleaders in this spectacle. We are encouraged to support the President, not in spite of the performance, not in fact on any evidence, but on the hope of a promised performance to come, (not some current score or final outcome). It is asking a lot of cheerleaders to be this mindless.
A less complacent media might have asked The War President, "Were the people who bothered to vote last election, --the ones who "had spoken", and not the majority too depressed to execute this gesture, saying they thought you were doing a heckofajob? Was this election result merely an aspirational gesture of the people?"
Hillary apparently feels that aspirational statements belong not only to The President but to Presidential hopefuls.
Krugman beans her for this rather than taking the press to task for cultivating these squalid conditions. She is a much easier target.

[maria]

When a war is lost, the people involved scatter in all directions. This is what is taking place in Washington. Everyone for himself, so to speak. There is no general consensus, merely confusion. Headless chickens running amok. Similar thing when Vietnam came apart. Probably inevitable. But not a good environment in which to develop a clear political message. Hillary and McCain are both stained by their recent pasts. Obama is the only one who is "clean"---but he is black. How sad for the US when a black politico is the only sensible one running and our inate racism will prevent us from electing him.

[evagrius]

Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/317.php?nid=&id=&pnt=317&lb=hmpg1

World View of US Role Goes From Bad to Worse

Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame for Tensions between Islam and the West

This should give everyone food for thought.

Thank you George Bush.

[Lafayette]

richard: "Our foreign policy is shallow and unworkable not because of the lack of resources but because of the unwillingness of this country to do the hard work of negotiating with allies"

This was the case of Bush the Son. It was not that of Bush the Father, who negotiated a UN sanctioned agreement to retake Kuwait.

Bush 2 was too impatient. He was likely thinking of the fact that Bush the Father was almost murdered by Saddam in a failed assassination attempt in ... Kuwait City. As if the Presidency were justification to use US forces in a vendetta.

Chirac had warned Bush that Iraq was a Pandora's Box. Bush refused to listen. Blair convinced Bush to ask the UN, but was stymied by the French in the Security Council.

Bush would not accept that anything should stop his personal vengeance. One can disagree with Bush's motives, and the bumbling Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi Army (because he read it in a book that this is what the Allies did in Germany) and thereby created, virtually overnight, able bodied and trained men who were out of a job and therefore inclined to join the insurgents.

Despite such colossal ineptitude on the part of the Americans in pursuing the war, Hussein was shown justice, something he so richly deserved. Perhaps the ONLY thing that he EVER deserved in his meaningless life was his own hanging.

But, despite our indignation at being misled by an incompetent administration, let's remember the real victims in this farce are not Americans. They are the Iraqis, the Iranians and the Kurds who died by the thousands at the hands of a genocidal murderer.

[Lafayette]

maria: "How sad for the US when a black politico is the only sensible one running and our inate racism will prevent us from electing him."

His color has nothing to do with it.

His lack of experience has everything to do with not voting him into the highest office in the nation.

Been there, done that ... look at the results.

[Stormy]

Hussein = Hitler? You have to be joking! Hitler must be turning over his grave! At least he had some real military power--and some rather powerful allies, if I remember correctly. Hitler took on the big boys--and had the world as his prize. This Hitler analogy ranks among the most stupid I have heard.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, few politicians had any backbone. Most just climbed on the patriotic bandwagon, Hillary included. Congress abandoned its constitutional responsibilities. Where was the declaration of war? Where was the marshalling of the nations resources? Tax cuts did the trick, apparently. Imagine Roosevelt calling for tax cuts and more spending at the mall.

This war has been a disgrace. Pure and simple. Poorly conceived. Poorly executed.

I remember a young college co-ed pressing Kerry on the war prior to the election. Stumbling and fumbling, he finally responded, "It's too complicated for you to understand." Yup, yup.

Seems to me, Kerry should apologize to that naive, young coed.

As far as I am concerned, duped or not, Hillary joined the mindless patriotic bandwagon. She was either stupid or had no guts. Either way, she does not get my vote.

One argument Hillary's advisors have given is that she did not want to handcuff the president. Presidents, apparently, now can start wars when the they deem it appropriate. Congress sat on its thumbs and said, "Well, you do what you think is best, Mr. President." Bull.

Hillary wants more of this if she gets elected. She apparently thinks we elect emperors. We give them total freedom of action. I must be reading a different constitution than Hillary is.

What is this logic? War is serious business. A nation goes go war; its leaders are supposed to debate the wisdom of going to war. A formal declaration is required.

[maria]

Lafayette: good sense and intelligence counts for more than "experience" in a President. A President cannot be "experienced" in all the areas he needs to deal with. But an intelligent President can get advisers with all the experience needed; what HE needs is to be able to sort out the good advice from the bad and that requires good sense and intelligence. Obama has shown far more good sense and intelligence than any of the others in the pack.

[maria]

Lafayette: a couple of dissents from your post. Bush II was motivated more by wanting to show up his papa (show him how to run a war, get the glory and then use it to destroy 'socialism' in the USA; he felt papa had blown his opportunities) than by revenge for the attempt on papa's life. I have little doubt but that Bush II felt highly inferior to papa (lousy student v. excellent student; drunk v. sober, etc.) and was eager to 'best' him.

I don't know about justice for Saddam. When you see what Iraq has become without a strong dictatorial central government, I think one has a better understanding of where Saddam was coming from. Only his type of government could hold Iraq together and keep the internal peace.

[Lafayette]

maria: "good sense and intelligence counts for more than "experience" in a President."

I am not prejudiced against Obama for the lack of either good sense or intelligence. Nor would I grant him automatically either of those two attributes.

But, from experience comes wisdom and intelligence - and not necessarily from good sense. Experience is not just a matter of succeeding. Even our failures contribute to forming the person.

Obama is right to present himself as a candidate. But, he has a way to haul before he gets where he would like to go.

If Bush has damaged the presidency it is because Americans were prepared to allow a younger person to become president. They will think twice next time.

[Lafayette]

stormy: "We give them total freedom of action."

No PotUS has absolute authority, under the separation of powers, unless specificaly allowed in emergency circumstances.

9/11 convinced America that Bush should be given the means to pursue al Qaeda and the plutocrats surrounding him took this for carte blanche to abrogate basic rights that are founded in the Constitution.

Let it be a lesson to us all. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, be VERY careful before you accord it and to whom and for what and for how long. Absolute power must be circumscribed regardless of the circumstances.

[Lafayette]

maria: "Only his type of government could hold Iraq together and keep the internal peace."

Including the genocide of two peoples?

Surely you jest.

[jpat]

The pertinent question is, as it often is, "what did she know and when did she know it?". A significant number of Senators and House members voted against the resolution. What did they know that Clinton didn't? What did these no-voters do to inform themselves about the relevant facts that Clinton didn't? If one reads comments of Rep. Kucinich and others during the House debate of the resolution it is clear that the facts exposing the lies that propped up the resolution were widely available (even to laymen in the hinterlands, let alone a U.S. Senator). So the inescapable truth is that the "mislead", like Clinton, or the "mistaken", like Edwards, share this common denominator: they were political cowardls at a time when their brave leadership was needed.

[Jim Harrison]

If the American political system were functioning properly, it would be perfectly reasonable to vote discretionary power to the executive under emergency circumstances because a legislator could be reasonably sure that the leader would pay a significant price for misusing that authority. For the time being, unfortunately, presidents are not held accountable so congress should be very careful about extending their powers. That's not the optimal solution, however, because the executive really does need discretion at times. What we badly need is the restoration of political justice. The greatest service Bush et. al. could do for us all is to die in prison or at the end of a rope.

Under real world circumstances, blaming Senator Clinton for making dicey political judgements back at the beginning of this mess is rather unfair. She was surely in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I expect she knew what was going on but calculated that making a moral gesture would be Quixotic when the country was still traumatized by 9/11 and Bush was very popular indeed. Political courage expended for a futile cause is merely theater. Of course it may be that she gained nothing by running away to fight another day, but that remains to be seen. I think I would have voted no myself, but I'm certainly not sure that my political judgment is better than hers.

[gordon]

Krugman says: "For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don’t think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake". So Hillary isn't really an arrogant politician who can do no wrong, she just acts like one????

[evagrius]

It seems everyone "talking" past each other.

The question is- was there any moral, ethical and legal justification for attacking Iraq?

If there was, it was not removing Hussein from power, ( that was for the Iraquis themselves to do- if there had been a call for outside help by a real, legitimate movement, ( as in Hungary, say, or even in Iraq with the uprising after Gulf War I, then there might be a legitimate reason)) .
It was not the WMDs since they didn't exist.
It wasn't Al-Queda since they had no connection.

I'm not sure of any other reason.

Can someone list another reason?

[Lafayette]

evagrius: "The question is- was there any moral, ethical and legal justification for attacking Iraq?"

Genocide of the Kurds, mass murder of Shiites including entire villages, two wars in which more than a million Iranians and Iraqis died? 9/11 pales besides these numbers.

What more moral imperative would one need? Fictitious WMDs buried in the dessert? Yeah, right ...

[ilsm]

Krugman:

"inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom..., which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security.."

"Seriousness about national security" is the code word for finding easy nails for our expensive unnecessary hammers to drive down.

We sell more hammers when they are used. We will do all kinds of things to make that hammer succeed so we justify buying more hammers.

Only this nail has popped back up and the elephant cannot stomp the ants.

National security has nothing to do with common defense or anything just and constitutional.

The hammers are not needed!

[ilsm]

Lafayette,

I am curious.

The indictments against Hussein are not that much less than one can bring against Putin. Certainly, Stalin.

Why no assaults on the Russians?

That is but one example.

How many South American, African and North Korean enemies can we attack for that moral justification?

As to the subject of righteous war, check out St Augustine, the guy the chaplains all quote to the US soldier.

What about Iraq has to do with the seven or eight justifiers for moral war?

I saw a couple of non starters in Augustine's list.

[ken melvin]

Bush's war has led to the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than Saddam. Shall we hang Bush?

[maria]

McCain seems increasingly tangled in his scatterbrained contradictions. When Rumsfeld resigned he said Rummy deserved everyone's "respect and gratitude" (or something like that). Today he called him "one of the worst Secretaries of Defense in US history." I think McCain is losing it. We need a cartoon of him tied in knots and then more knots. LOL.

[calmo]

I thought the Krugman beef was that Hillary, in not admitting she made a mistake (voting for the war), was adopting a GWB strategy of infallibility.
Unlike Edwards (who I see attracts Will's attentions).
And I thought it was a pretty good point...if you wanted to bash Hillary and/or w, (or any political office holder who claims they've never made a mistake and by inference are just incapable of improving...such is their view of their record...and your intelligence.). But if you wanted to drive the nail home, I thought it was, well, being bent sideways and better grab the nail puller and set it up again.
This B my 2nd blow:
Who accepts this notion of Presidential infallibility? Not just Tony Snow. Not just Fox News. The lack of investigative and critical reportage by our press in the affairs of this administration tells me (pounder of straight, not bent, nails) that our major media are heavily invested in Presidential infallibility. [Did you notice how less invested they were with President Clinton? Compare the affair of Monica and whatwashisface who provided similar services?] (This B a family show but I want you to know how hard I'm working to keep it that way.)
To accept anything less than Presidential infallibility is to allow a crack in the door and allow the Terrorists in.
The MSM (Ok maybe not Obermann) sit wide and broad on this notion: the War President is infallible.

[maria]

Shall we hang Bush?

Well, why wait, but a lethal injection would be nicer and more compassionate. LOL

[Lafayette]

calmo: "I thought the Krugman beef was that Hillary, in not admitting she made a mistake (voting for the war), was adopting a GWB strategy of infallibility."

Think again.

Just because the war was ineptly conducted does not mean that, given the information extant at the time the vote was taken, one could not have found reason for voting for intervention in Iraq. Genocide, to my mind, is ample reason for having toppling Saddam. Bush Pere had ample reason as well to overthrow the tyrant.

You are criticizing a political judgement taken years ago given the facts of today. That is not only unfair but arbitrary.

Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Who could have known beforehand with certainty the outcome of the Iraq invasion? Hillary is smart but not prescient.

[Lafayette]

ilsm: “The indictments against Hussein are not that much less than one can bring against Putin. Certainly, Stalin.”

You cannot be serious. Stalin, yes; Putin, no. Not yet.

ilsm: Why no assaults on the Russians? That is but one example.

An example of what? Where you expecting an exhaustive list of genocides throughout the history of mankind?

Sorry to not have obliged you.

ilsm: What about Iraq has to do with the seven or eight justifiers for moral war?

Genocide, of which St. Augistine probably had no inkling whatsoever, is a crime against humanity.

Sorry, but the world does NOT need a St. Augustine to determine what is morally wrong or morally correct. Most people, I should think, would agree that the difference between a Hitler and a Stalin and an Hussien is breathtakingly little. (Stalin had the A-bomb to save his sorry ass. Saddam, had he obtained one, would be alive and well in Baghdad this very day. Just like Kim il Sung.)

Besides, it is not up to America to police the world for crimes against humanity. There is another body that should find such acts written in its Charter, namely the UN. But, the UN has no teeth.

Everyone knew of Saddam’s injustices to his own people. His “case” of crimes against humanity should have been brought up to the UN and he be tried in abstentia. Then, the UN could have debated what to do about the man. (Instead of its minions having made millions by scamming the food-for-oil program.)

Genocide and other crimes against humanity are common, everyday events around the globe. Where is the moral indignation against such barbarity to be found? No where. But, our “green planet” does obtain the moral high ground, with voluminous media attention. Which actually does more harm to humans, CO2 emissions or murderous despots?

Answer the question.

[baileyman]

Better than saying "I was wrong" would be "I was tricked."

[Cyrille]

CO2 emissions, by a CONSIDERABLE distance.

Other than that, the differences between Hussein (a terrible man, granted) and Hitler are absolutely huge. And if the USA had wanted to improve the life of the citizens of a country, they would have helped Morgan Tsvangirai get to power in Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe suffer far more from Mugabe than Iraqis suffered from Hussein in 2003, there is a fully viable alternative, and it would never have needed massive killings to accomplish that. Attacking Iraq instead proved that it had nothing to do with improving people's lives.

[ilsm]

Lafeyette.

CO2 emissions.

Know anyone with COPDS?

Come from industrial pollution as well as tobacco addiction.

Those responsible make Hussein look like Santa Claus.

[ken melvin]

When 'tis said and done, there'll be another Saddam and many a more Iraqi will be killed by their own government. In the end, what we've done will not make one whit worth of difference in the final outcome. Way it works, usually. Tolstoy and the train whistle, you know. Problem with GWB and that whole southern oldtestamentchristianjudeofascist bunch is they think the onliest way is to make someone do something, which doesn't work and never did.

[Bruce Webb]

Lafayette has still refused to lay out timelines.

Who killed how many of whom when and when did that become an American imperative?

Inconvenient questions to be sure but seemingly unavoidable.

How many Kurds were killed before Rumsfield shook Saddams hand in that now infamous picture? And how did those deaths justifiy THIS war. Lafayette is holding out for a Sins of the Father defense for an indefensible war.

Saddam was a monster. We get that. The butchers who rule Myanmar today are monsters. We get that. Darfur is a humanitarian disaster and the Ganjaweed guys are monsters. We even get that. Hungry and sick children world wide are a disaster and we even get THAT. Why any of that justifies tying down our entire combat capability in this particular conflict and a dollar commitment heading towards a trillion is inexcusable.

Lafayette you are wrong. Dead wrong. Your post facto attempts to justify this clusterfuck are lame. You show no ability to weigh benefit vs cost here. You are showing all the strategic ability of the General Staff of the British and French Armies during WWI. Yes Germany was the enemy. No just sending troops marching in rows into the machine guns was not the right tactics to accomplish your strategy. Opposing that strategy didn't make Black Jack Pershing a traitor, it made him the guy that won the war in less than a year.

When Black Jack Pershing's boys landed in France one of them famously exclaimed "Lafayette! We are here!"

Time for a latter day Laf to clean out his ears.

[Noni Mausa]

evagrius: "The question is- was there any moral, ethical and legal justification for attacking Iraq?"

Lafayette: "Genocide of the Kurds, mass murder of Shiites including entire villages, two wars in which more than a million Iranians and Iraqis died? 9/11 pales besides these numbers."

Solving the problem of what to do about the dictators -- a modest proposal might be for people to nominate dictators to be included in a UN "to do" list, with a set checklist of conditions they must meet or exceed. Then flip a coin every couple of years as to which one to depose that time around.

We can take children away from abusive parents -- why not take citizens away from abusive rulers? Starting in Darfur, I say.

Noni

PS Then Lafayette went on: "What more moral imperative would one need? Fictitious WMDs buried in the dessert? Yeah, right ..."

Don't you DARE bury a WMD in my trifle! --N

[piglet]

"Tyranny, in the form of a genocidal maniac in power like Saddam, demanded immediate action. How many more Kurds beyond the 85,000 that he gassed or killed was acceptable? How many more Shiites beyond the 150,000? How about the 1 million who died in wars Saddam instigated. Whilst the world simply abided or even assisted." "Where is the moral indignation against such barbarity to be found?"

Lafayette, this is perhaps a good moment to remind you that Saddam was hanged for crimes he had committed *shortly before* Mr Knight-of-justice Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to promise Mr Adolf-Hitler Hussein American support in his aggression against Iran. Why didn't that "genocidal maniac in power demand immediate action" then, in the 1980s? Why did it "demand immediate action" many years after he had committed his worst crimes, and after he hed become useless to his American supporters?

Your attempts at justifying a stupid and immoral war of aggression are indeed lame, and I have to say disappointing.

[Movie Guy]

There are legitimate reasons for the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it was the correct strategic course of action. Removing Hussein could have been accomplished without an invasion.

The level of expertise on the Middle East by key persons in the U.S. Department of State should have been sufficient to derail Administration players' attempts (other than the President's) to invade/occupy Iraq. A private or public threat of mass resignation of employees at the State Department long before the invasion began would have sent a powerful message to the Congress if not the Administration.

The Members of Congress had the opportunity to receive State Department country assessment briefings before they voted on the resolution.

In my judgment, the majority of the Members of the Congress were not duped into anything. They had watched the U.S. Government battle with Hussein for over ten years and had had enough. The case put forth by the Clinton Administration was very similar to the case put forth by the Bush II Administration. Both Administrations used the same word-for-word hot list of myths about Iraq. I have posted it previously.

The State Department employees (the ones who didn't resign but could/should have) and private specialists should have pressed their case to the public and the Congress with more vigor. This is, after all according to many experts, the largest U.S. strategic error in U.S. history. Well, hell, if they know that now, then they should have had a high expectation of that probability before the invasion/occupation.

I make no excuse for any of the Members of Congress. All they had to do was watch the movie, 'Lawrence of Arabia', and understand it. Then go get a few country assessments briefings (Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and Pakistan, for starters) from the U.S. State Department.

[Lafayette]

BW: "Saddam was a monster. We get that. The butchers who rule Myanmar today are monsters. We get that. Darfur is a humanitarian disaster and the Ganjaweed guys are monsters. We even get that. Hungry and sick children world wide are a disaster and we even get THAT. Why any of that justifies tying down our entire combat capability in this particular conflict and a dollar commitment heading towards a trillion is inexcusable."

You have a bent for confusing things.

Hungry and sick children are not the reason why the US is tied down to Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq unilaterally, it will provoke a civil war causing not hundreds but thousands of civilian deaths.

Is that what you want for an outcome, because Iraq is a "trillion dollar" mistake? The US started this mess, now finish it honourably.

America was told, time and time again, to leave Iraq alone. It is, as Kofi Anan, said an "illegal war" - the US invasion contravenes the UN Charter of which both the US and Iraq are signatories. The lead-head in the WH, that Americans elected and re-elected, new full well the consequences of what he started.

You don't like the game anymore, so you want to go home? What infantile nonsense.

[Lafayette]

Joke time:

"How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

There are three possible answers:
(a) Two, one to change it and the other to hold an imaginary ladder.
(b) Eight, one to change it and seven to guarantee that
everything else remains constant.
(c) None, they will all be waiting for an invisible hand to do it.

[maria]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor", despite the war's growing unpopularity at home and doubts among U.S. allies.

This is the same crap spewed by Kissinger re Vietnam and that cost thousands more dead and many more crippled while Kissinger negotiated to "save" US honor. And we were humiliated and defeated anyway and left Vietnam without any honor at all. These jerks in charge who think national "honor" is worth untold suffering should be the ones who are killed on crippled in "saving" it.

[maria]

Vice President Dick Cheney reaffirmed the Bush administration's commitment to the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq during a visit to a U.S. aircraft carrier Wednesday, saying "the American people will not support a policy of retreat."

Since Americans voted to get out and all polls say they want to, our VP is simply telling another of his constant lies. One wonders what makes a politico lie so much.

[Lafayette]

piglet: "Why did it "demand immediate action" many years after he had committed his worst crimes, and after he hed become useless to his American supporters?"

Because of an American strategic policy that decided that anyone who was an enemy of Tehran was a friend of Washington.

Moral indignation begins at home. If you expect to further foreign policy objectives without the slightest regard for moral imperatives, then you will have the Nixons and Rumsfelds for a leadership.

The ends DO NOT justify the means. Saddam should have been brought down by a coalition of the righteous with the full consent of the United Nations ... and not a rogue Texan who stumbled into the White House.

[ilsm]

Wrong not " a rogue Texan who stumbled into the White House."

It is a" rogue Texan who bumbled into the White House with help of his brtother's troopers and sec of state".

Although rogue implies a level of animous I do not ascribe to Dubya.

Does he have ambition enough to be a rogue?

[Lafayette]

"Does he have ambition enough to be a rogue?"

I suspect it is a birthright, though I doubt it came via the male lineage. Though, they say genetic attributes skip a generation before reappearing pre-eminently.

He certainly has the qualities of a rogue: "A person or thing that is defective, aberrant, or unpredictable".