Paul Krugman's Shameful Political Attack And Rewrite of History

By now, most of the readers of yesterday's Drudge Report are aware that a columnist for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, wrote the following blog entry and published it just prior to the time of day when the first World Trade Center tower was attacked on 9/11/2011:

The Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Aside from the fact that this criticism of Bush, Giuliani, and Kerik are so politically motivated and so shamefully out of place on a day of solemn remembrance, it is also factually wrong. Krugman would have you believe that the events of 9/11 were something that Bush and other neocons had just been eagerly awaiting: An excuse to go to war. But, this is a pure rewrite of history. Simply, the Afghanistan War would have never happened if the Taliban had complied with George W. Bush's demand that they turn over Osama Bin Laden and stop harboring Al Qaeda. That's the reality that Krugman's blog entry seems to have conveniently and so "liberal-mindedly" forgotten.

As far as being fake heroes, I think Bush, Giuliani, or Kerik would "all" admit that the heroes of that day were those who lost their lives and those who saved the lives of others; and, not themselves. What these men did, following 9/11, was to simply do their jobs to protect the citizens of this country. Each was an extremely strong and competent leader at a time of intensely wrenching turmoil in our history. A fact that we can all be thankful for and a fact that, apparently, Krugman doesn't seem to comprehend.

The Wind-Down Of Iraq/Afghanistan Wars Will Hurt and Help The Economy

Not that I am any fan of war but, Americans should be made aware of the economic consequences of winding down our involvement in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012. In a nutshell, we will lose jobs. That's because the military industrial complex, in support of any war effort, is a real job creator. It's what most economists call a "war-time economy" and, for those spendthrift Keynesians, it is often referred to as "military Keynesianism". But, like all Keynesian spending efforts, the direct economic benefits will also stop as soon as the spending stops.

Right now, we have thousands of workers who have been "employed" in the re-arming, feeding, and outfitting of our military. What percentage of those who will actually lose their jobs is hard to determine. It depends on how many will continue in the war effort by supplying Iraq and Afghanistan troops. In the short term, there is bound to be a hit on employment. However, in the long term, the economic benefits will be significant, because contrary to Keynesian spending theory, the U.S. deficits will be reduced; the dollar strengthened; and consumer spending will benefit from lowered import prices.

Of course, this will all be for naught if Obama and the Democrats try to use the decline in war-spending as some kind of new found money they can spend on more economy-killing social programs. Hopefully, the Republicans won't let this happen.

A Tightrope Walk: Using Drones In Pakistan/Afghanistan

The Obama Administration made a decision last year to ramp up the use of drones and missile attacks in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan; rather than use ground troops. While this tactic avoids losing U.S. and coalition military lives, it has a political downside that could make our American military look to be the no better than -- probably worse than -- the Taliban. This is because, in using missiles from the air rather than using the tactic of maneuvering troops on the ground, there is a very high rate of collateral civilian deaths. From a political standpoint, this could lose us the war by losing the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani peoples.

To Obama, Everything Is a Rush Except Afganistan

This week, the O-man told the nation that he wasn't going to make a hasty decision on Afghanistan because he is "bent on getting this right" (Click to See Full Story: "Obama: Decision soon on troops for Afghanistan").

Isn't that interesting? What about everything else that has been done by the President this last 10 months? Almost all of which had to be done immediately! And, most of which have had or will have a greater impact on the nation as a whole than Afghanistan. By implication, is he now admitting that he didn't get those other things right?

It appears that Obama has no problems about pushing trillion dollar agendas such as the Stimulus Package, Cap and Trade, and Health Care Reform on a hurried basis. Or, making his left-wing base happy by immediately declaring that Guantanamo Bay will be closed in a year; no ifs, ands, or buts! But, when it comes to a decision that might seriously annoy his left-wing anti-war base, such as the War in Afghanistan, he wants to get it right.

On Afghanistan, Obama really wants to get out. He only made Afghanistan a big issue during the campaign because he wanted to "use it" as a means to minimize G. W. Bush and John McCain over the other war in Iraq. In the campaign, he wanted to make Afghanistan seem like the good war; the war worth winning. But, in reality, he always was, and still is, an anti-war lefty. So, now he is stuck in the middle of a bad campaign promise to win in Afghanistan while he and his supporters have an extreme desire to just get out of Afghanistan and give the country back to the Taliban. When he talks of "getting this right" he is actually talking about making sure that his far-left political support is not jeopardized. It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, our troops, or this country! Otherwise, he would have his decision already!

Obama On The Afghanistan Troop Decision: Playing Politics?

There are some political pundits who believe that Obama is holding his decision on additional troops for Afghanistan until after Tuesday's elections are held. They believe that Obama doesn't want to announce a "surge" and tick off his liberal base and jeopardize the Democrats already floundering gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey.

If that is true, we can expect Obama to announce increased troop decisions within a couple of days following Tuesday's closure of the polls. Also, if true, it would be a sad state of affairs for this President to have jeopardized the lives of our soldiers while playing strategic politics.

1,2,3,What Are We Fighting For?

I was scanning the Drudge Report headlines and I ran into this story: "Morale dips for American marines in Afghanistan". When I read it, I couldn't help thinking about the de facto theme song of Woodstock, sung by Country Joe and the Fish, that went like this:

And its one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam.
And its five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die.

The only difference between then and now is that you can swap the word Vietnam with Afghanistan.

It seems like the whole objective of the Afghanistan war has changed since Obama took office. Even the national polls are reflecting a dissatisfaction with this war. Almost overnight, it is as if we went from wanting to be a victor to just wanting to get the hell out. And, I'm not sure why.

I realize that the Taliban have been winning some victories and our troops have sustained casualties. But, wars are like that. Sometimes it can look the darkest before things turnaround. Just look at Iraq.

We lost Vietnam because of a lack of commitment. Now, the same seems to be happening in Afghanistan. But, what is really strange is that Iraq and Afghanistan have literally swapped roles. Just two years ago, Iraq was looking like a quagmire and it was Afghanistan that seemed more under control. Now, I am believing, more and more, that we will leave Afghanistan in much the same way we left Vietnam. And, that's very sad.

The Afghan War: Another One of Obama's 'Present' Votes

While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted "Present" 129 times. A "Present" vote is like voting "Maybe". It neither says that you are "For" or "Against" a piece of legislation. Supporters of Obama will point out that Obama voted 4000 times in his Illinois career and that voting "Present" 129 times is an insignificant number. However, all votes are not the same. Some are just procedural. The true fact is that Obama voted "Present" on some of the most difficult issues that were before the Illinois Senate; like his voting twice on partial birth abortion legislation.

Today, we have a request from the field commander for additional troops in Afghanistan. It has been more than a month since that request was actually made. However, Obama has still not made a decision. The literal pickle that Obama finds himself in is that the polls are showing a declining support for the war. His left-wing base is totally against any escalation of this or any other war. However, Obama is on record saying the Afghanistan War, unlike Iraq, is the "good war" and it was the war that he would fight to win.

So, as a result, we have the equivalent of another Obama "Present" vote for the war in Afghanistan. In this case, doing nothing is the same as voting "Present". It appears that the only time Obama is tough is when he's up against Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce. Otherwise, indecision will prevail. And, that's a sign of weak leader.

Afghanistan: The Biden Solution?

Increasingly, there are rumblings that Obama is considering implementing a Joe Biden plan for the war in Afghanistan; rather than take the advice of his appointed general overseeing that war. In essence, the Biden plan says we should conduct a protracted war in Afghanistan with limited troop support and concentrate on attacking Al Qaeda with remote-controlled drones by targeting their strongholds all along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. At the heart of this plan is the belief that we don't need to worry about the Taliban; as if, somehow, these just-radical-as-Al-Qaeda radicals pose no threat to America.

Apparently, people like Biden seem to forget that we wouldn't have even attacked Afghanistan if the ruling Taliban had simply turned over Bin Laden in the first place. But, they protected Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda training camps and refused to give them up. This, then, resulted in the war that we have today. A war that has chased both the Taliban and Al Qaeda into the mountainous areas of Tora Bora. To back off now would just hand Afghanistan back over to the Taliban and, then, most likely, reestablish home sweet home for Al Qaeda.

If Biden had been such a spot-on military strategist in the past, I would say that we should consider his plan. However, he has been consistently out of step with both logic and reality. He was against the original Gulf War because he didn't think we could take Saddam's army. But, to the contrary, we defeated Saddam in just days.

Then, he was all "for" the second war with Iraq because he firmly believed that Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction. The left seems to forget that Biden was wrong, too, while they keep blaming Bush for the "lie" that Saddam had WMD's. Since then, Biden went on record saying that the surge wouldn't work. But, unfortunately for Biden's continuing reputation of being wrong, the surge did work and worked better than expected. Then there was his brilliant plan that the war in Iraq could be ended by just partitioning Iraq into three religious areas that were controlled by the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds. Of course, instrumental to this insane idea was the fact that Sunnis, Kurds and Shia who were living in someone else's territory would have to be uprooted from their homes and moved to be with those of their own kind. Thank God Biden didn't have any input on desegregation plans of the 1960's in this country. Otherwise, all the Blacks of America would have wound up being cloistered in some isolated city/states in America.

The left has a history of not trusting the military and in believing that the military is only interested in war and more war. Because of this, the left has always believed that it is the military's own self interest to always want more troops. But, in reality, Generals, like anyone else, don't really want to go to war unless they can win without sustaining massive losses of either men or material. Also, most Generals believe that a strong military is a deterrent to war and not a reason to go to war; at least if the military is part of a peaceful society like ours.

Personally, I wouldn't bet on anything that Biden says. He is literally a gaffe-a-minute machine. This fact, alone, should give one pause to consider anything he says. To listen to him on Afghanistan is to ignore that fact and to ignore how terribly wrong he has been in the past. Yet, this President and the left of his party seem to think that Biden is the be-all and end-all when it comes to military planning. God help us all!

Pussy Footin' Again. Now in Afghanistan

When George Wallace ran for President during the height of the Vietnam war, he described the handling of the war as "pussy footin' around." In using that term, he was criticizing the fact that America lacked the commitment to win the war in Vietnam; either in strategy or in will.

If we analyzed the dance that is going on between Barack Obama and his commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, we could easily say that Obama, too, was "pussy footin' around" by ignoring McChrystal's request for new troops (Click to See Full Story: "U.S. commander says Afghan war needs more troops").

Obama's campaign commitment to win the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan was just another campaign tactic that he used to beat McCain for the Presidency. But, like a lot of what he has said and says, it was hollow in intent. It was similar to his promise to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Now, it's looking like both those promises will be broken.

As in Vietnam, the casualties in Afghanistan are rising and the support in Congress is waning; mostly from the Democrats. Also, like Vietnam, we have a corrupt central government in Karzai and an outlying agricultural lifestyle that gets nothing in true support from a central government. The enemy, the Taliban, are more committed to win than the Afghans. For them, this is a religious war. This is similar to the communist beliefs of the North Vietnamese and their fervor to win and convert the South.

For almost a month now, Obama has told McChrystal to hold his report on troop requirements until he (Obama) was ready for it. So, for a month, our soldiers have been dying and McChrystal's request for more troops has been ignored as if Obama is playing some kind of "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" game.

(Maybe if Mr. Obama could give up prepping for and delivering just "one" of his more than 100+ speeches on health care, he could ask for and read the McChrystal report. )

I especially like this excerpt from the aforementioned news story on this situation:

"McChrystal, who commands more than 100,000 Western troops, two-thirds of them American, has drafted a separate request spelling out how many more he needs but has not sent it to the Pentagon, which says it is considering how he should submit it."

Just give me a break! The Pentagon is trying to consider "how" McChrystal "should submit it." What are we talking about: Double-spaced? Two-sided? The color of the paper? My God!

I believe this shows that the war in Afghanistan is doomed to be Obama's equivalent of Vietnam. There are too many excuses being used by both Obama and the Pentagon. Ultimately, we will leave that country as losers; just as in Vietnam. And, just as in Vietnam, all the lives that were lost will be for naught!

If we are "not" committed to winning; then, let's just leave and avoid any more deaths of our soldiers. Otherwise, wage the war as if we mean it. Obama put McChrystal in charge because he didn't like the last commander's advice. Now, Obama doesn't seem to like McChrystal's advice. Who does this guy want in charge? Cindy Sheehan?

So...Where are they?

Did I miss it? Is the war in Iraq over? Did all of our troops come home? Did we come to some kind of accord in Afghanastan? Of course not! So, where are all the anti-war protesters? Where is Code Pink? Where's Cindy Sheehan? Where did all those who parked their silly butts outside Bush's Ranch go?

The fact is that they all went home. To me it was never so much about being anti-war than being anti-Bush. Those people weren't around when Clinton engaged us in a war in Kosovo. It just seems to me that if you are truly anti-war, you are anti-war. No maybe's; sometimes; and certainly not only-when-you-feel-like-it anti-war. If you are truly anti-war you would be against what is happening in the Gaza Strip or in the Sudan. There are plenty of wars to protest. Actually, it could be a full time job. But only in America is being anti-war so selective. Aren't they special?

War Is All Around Us

Besides a failing economy, the incoming Obama administration has one thing they can count on: that's War. And, most importantly, there is the possibility of war in almost every corner of the world.

There is no doubt that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going to be wrapped up anytime soon. Then, this weekend's pounding of Hamas and the residents of the Gaza Strip by the Israelis just proves to reinforce the fragility of peace in the Middle East. But, that's not hardly where all the tensions stop.

Just Prior to Christmas, additional Pakistani troops were moved to their adjacent border with India in a new and more ominous troop build up between these two nuclear powers (See Full Story). The U.S. is caught in the middle on this one because both are our allies. But, the consequences of a war involving Pakistan and anyone else can seriously hurt our efforts in our war on terror.

Much closer to home, and rarely ever talked about, are the tensions between Columbia and Venezuela and Ecuador and Columbia (Venezuela's close political friend). My guess is that we could see war in this area within a year's time (See Full Story). Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, may just want to use a war with Columbia as a means to bolster his sagging popularity. The real question is whether the U.S. will intervene and assist Columbia as our ally and as a means of keeping Chavez from expanding his scope of power.

Then, there's the biggest tinderbox of all. That's the situation between Iran and Israel; with Iran obtaining and possibly using nuclear weapons against Israel. While no war exists now, this situation could be the biggest test for the Obama administration with Israel poised to stop Iran before they can complete their fulfillment of having nuclear weapons. While President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad (that's All*mad*and*jihad), claims that his nuclear program is only for peaceful energy, the whole world knows differently. Mr. Obama claims he can put this situation to bed by simply talking to Ahmadinejad; something he feels that Bush has been neglectful in doing. However, that is a political lie on the part of Obama. For at least three years, key members of Europe (France, England, and Germany) have been holding talks with Iran; and, in 2006, the United States offered to have direct talks if Iran would suspend it's uranium enrichment activities while the talks are ongoing (See Full Story). Of course, Mr. Obama would talk without any preconditions. Sort of like Nero: "fiddling while Rome burns"!

I personally think that Obama might find himself a little over his head on foreign affairs. He's got most of the Clinton people on his team that failed to get an accord between Israel and Palestine while Bill Clinton was in office. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, hasn't got a history of being the diplomat. Just look back at her miserable failure in getting support for a Federal health care system at the beginning of Bill Clinton's first term. That was a domestic diplomatic disaster between the Republicans, the Democrats, Insurance Companies, and the medical industry (See Full Story). Now she's going international with that negotiation style? To me, the political animal, Barack Obama, made the Hillary choice for all the wrong domestic reasons and without considering the importance of having a tactful handler in foreign affairs.

What ever happens, the next four years could be very exciting and, hopefully, not disastrous.