PAUL KRUGMAN: Trust and Betrayal

[kevinmc]

“In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.” That’s what President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation’s history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.

Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war’s architects, whom we now know were warned about the risks, didn’t want to hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all go so wrong?

Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning — even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.......

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/05/paul-krugman-trust-and-betrayal.html

[dave_p]

1. Classy

"When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a 'movement' that 'has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us', he should be treated as a lunatic.

When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of 'Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda' wants to 'bring down the West', he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.

And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will 'follow us home' if we leave, he should be laughed at."

[illinoisprogressive]

2. 20 years ago I read the rise and fall of the third reich by Shirer. I wondered

at the time how the germans let Hitler take over so completely, lead them into lies for wars and follow him. I wondered how a continent let a madman run all over them. I wanted to know because at 9 my mother's country was overrun by the nazi's and France was not liberated until 1944. 4 years.
And as we trudge along on another madman's ride, I wonder if my mother sees Hitler rising again. I do not say this lightly. But, I fear and feel in my bones that these evil twins, Bush and Cheney are plotting to do something awful.
My mom says bush is just like Hitler but, I always thought it was being dramatic. But, more and more I wonder.

[rwenos]

4. Mom's Partially Right

I've read and studied a lot about Hitler, including Shirer's "Rise and Fall" and "Berlin Diary" (the latter highly recommended if you've never read it. Always fascinated, in a horror sort of way, about how Hitler rose in an otherwise sane country.

Your Mom is right about Bush's tactics. Bush, like Hitler, has scapegoated a chimera (Hiter, "the Jews," Bush, "the Terrorists") Bush, like Hitler, is completely opportunistic and shameless in his lies. Bush, like Hitler, mobilizes political energy primarily by fear -- fear of economic instability, fear of a competing Big Idea (Communism), fear of loss of national pride. The speeches, the appeals, the Big Lies, the power consolidation after a minority election -- all very similar.

The big difference is America is not 1930s Germany. We have strong, historical democratic institutions. What little control there has been on Bush is because of them. We have a strong economy, a ridiculously-strong military, and a huge, ethnically-diverse nation. Lots of political counterweights to Bush, which Hitler did not have.

But could Bush become Hitler, given the right circumstances? To ask the question is to answer it.

[liberalmike27]

12. I was saying this

and making the comparison to Hitler, and the rise of the Third Reich three years ago, before it became popular. I can't say I'm that much of an historian either, but like you I'd read a book or two about that area of history. It is striking the similarities, the reichstag fire, the torturing of our own citizens, the hauling people off without trial, based only on the Executive, to be held as long as possible. The fact that we are attacking other countries and our media has been used as a cudgel to pound the masses into nationalism.

Back then I was scolded and chided for being too extreme. Too soon, I guess. They say the devil's biggest accomplishment is that he has convinced people he doesn't exist. The media is like the devil, and they've convinced people they are liberal, when they are actually quite conservative, also something I've been pounding into psyches for years. I don't even see how people ever got the idea in current times the media was liberal, as all you have to do is watch it to see otherwise.

[Skittles]

3. all you f***ing idiots who say the IWR vote no longer matters

"Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war." - STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THEM

[Hissyspit]

5. And read the IWR. It is GARBAGE. It is embarassing...

in it's wording. Shouldn't have got one vote.

[Skittles]

6. amen to THAT

gawd, the people who say that issue is old news SUCK

[uberllama42]

7. "America always goes to war reluctantly"

That's a damnable lie, and it would be even if that criminal had not foisted this abomination on the world. There was huge public support for the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, and World War II. The American public has often been stirred into a pro-war state of mind. There is no greater evidence than the great lie behind this war in particular that the American public of today is dangerously complacent and shamefully uncritical. I predict that we won't learn any more from this war than we did from Vietnam.

[starroute]

10. Don't forget the War of 1812

That war was a result of the "war hawks" of the time, who figured that while England and France were locked in mortal combat was a great time to attack one or the other -- didn't much matter which -- or maybe both at once.

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/amer_warhawk.html

The War Hawks were a coterie of about twenty Democratic Republicans who persuaded Congress into supporting a declaration of war against Britain. These young, vocal members from the South and the western U.S. were voted into the House during mid-term congressional elections in 1810. . . .

From November 1811 to June 1812, the War Hawks argued for war and the requisite financial and military preparations. Most congressmen were opposed to war, but many voted for increased military spending and an expanded militia. They were confident that Britain would yield to U.S. demands if it saw that America was seriously considering military action. After all, Britain was already deeply involved with the Napoleonic Wars in Europe.

Ultimately, the War Hawks were able to convince the majority of congressmen to vote in favour of this "second struggle for liberty". Although many members bickered over insignificant details (like whether or not to increase the U.S. navy), they tended to agree that it wasn't realistic to expect a peaceful and diplomatic conclusion to the ongoing conflict with Britain.

Sound familiar?

[uberllama42]

11. Forgive my omission

and thanks for the info. I think if more people knew how wars really work, i.e. how they start and what it is like to fight in a war, more people would be anti-war as a rule rather than an exception. Instead people like Howard Zinn and Dennis Kucinich are derided as crazy and dangerous to our national security.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Thanks for the thread kevinmc

Kicked and recommended

[Martin Eden]

9. K&R for KRUGMAN!!!

PK cuts right to the gist of the matter, as usual:

The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.

Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.

When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.

And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at.

But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.