[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/pn/ - Politics and News

The hide post feature is your friend

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
Click here to find out if your antivirus software sucks!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


You won't get banned for your opinion
Politics Opinion World Financial Odd Boards Religion Science Technology Entertainment

File: 1432023049735.jpg (13.12 KB, 150x150, 1:1, krugman-circular-thumbLarg….jpg)

 No.585

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html?_r=0

Surprise! It turns out that there’s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago. But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.

Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.

The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.

And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] …sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.

 No.592

I don't often agree with Krugman but I think this is a good one. It would have been nice back then to have had an honest discussion about the pros and cons of going to war instead of the 'you don't support our troops' line

More common understanding less instant disregard for someone else's opinion would have been nice




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]