Krugman: Staying What Course? (British Meme)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.

There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.

Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

<snip>

But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.

"We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them?"

"So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course.""

since 2000.

:thumbsup: to you for the print edition of the article btw.

dp

... love it. thank you, paul k!

And E&P sez Downing Street War Memo Gains Traction in U.S. Press

This was also brought up on Media Matters on NPR today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp&oref=login

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 16, 2005
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.

There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.




-snip
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?

Every body reads Paul Krugman - won't be long now

"There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted."

The s*it has hit the fan . . .

You laid it right on the table and have brought this issue into the mainstream.

When 10,000 to 20,000, if that is the number of men with small arms, can bring the 'most powerful' army in the world to a stand still it is not the country we were or the world has changed. Take your pick. It may be both. It is the one thing we can always know will happen. Things will change.

Whenever there is an attack on US forces, they respond with overwhelming firepower, but that kind of firepower often accidentally kills many civilians, and their families are less likely to support the US and more likely to take up arms and seek revenge as a result. It becomes a cycle that feeds upon itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3632200&mesg_id=3663604

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

Email to krugman@nytimes.com

And email it to everyone you know--keep it up on the most emailed list (which it made today). THAT is how the Times knows the public is listening.

Do it now.

They keep track of which articles are most emailed.
You might need to register, but it's free (at least for now. They are going to start charging)

www.nytimes.com

I am hoping, though, that Bush doesn't get let off the hook by "telling the Iraqis they hae to deal with the mess themselves" approach...

We DID make the mess...If we're going to leave the innocent Iraqis stranded, then Bushco must be made accountable....But who will do it?
Certainly not our complicit Democrats...