The Left's Ideological Village Idiot

    He just cannot stop blaming Bush. No, I am not talking about Obama. The March 18th Ope-Ed in the NYT from writer and Liberal torch bearer Paul Krugman reminds me of a badly written song skipping over and over on a broken record. In the Op-Ed he equates the invasion of Iraq to our current fiscal demise. I couldn't resist. I cut out the article (stole it) stuffed it into my pocket and here I am. I could think of only one person up to the task.

    ".. It was obvious... the Bush Administration misled the nation into war.." Simply amazing, this guy never stops does he? He is adroit at the paradigm; keep repeating the same lie and it becomes truth. This isn't the first rodeo for old Paul either. A few months back I watched him on Bill Moyers talk about why the Obama economic plan wasn't going as swimmingly as it should. After he performed his dog and pony show of blaming Bush and Republicans his summation amounted to the fact that Obama hadn't spent enough money and more was needed (insert definition of insanity here). His master full misrepresentation of Ari Fliesher's comment following the firing of Bill Mayer at ABC, "..be careful what you say." was completely taken out of context and became another banner of the leftist anti-war movement.. It was nothing short of where the line between journalistic integrity ends and pure pandering begins.

    How? Some one help me here, please. How did President Bush purposely orchestrate a lie that led us into war in Iraq? Intelligence agencies here and around the world were all convinced of the evidence.
    From FOX News' John Gibson's book How The Left Swiftboated America:
    " Saddam Hussein had convinced every one. even his own generals, that he had WMD. His actions toward the UN weapons inspectors strongly suggested he was hiding something.... his capabilities of restarting a bio-weapons program... had not been diminished."
    Then there was the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence report:
    " Regarding the Iraq/Al-Qaeda relationship reporting from sources... points to a number of contacts, incidents of training and discussions of Iraqi safe haven for UBL... dating from the early 1990's.."
    Foreign nations told us they sold him equipment for weaponizing chemical and biological agents. The use of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war is well documented. There was also the mass murder of over 5000 Kurds with WMD. Try telling a surviving Kurdish family member that there were no WMD and he will punch you in the face.

    Krugman continues: " ... during the run up to the war, was the illusion of consensus."
    That's not how I remember it. The left was constantly reminding us that there was no consensus at all either from Congress or the UN. However, as the debates moved along and a coalition began to form the Left turned the argument around and denigrated those nations who came on board. They tagged it, "the coalition of the willing".
    It was Krugman and another journalist with a thimble full of integrity, Frank Rich who beat the drum of defeat in Iraq despite the surge, despite the elections that ushered in the Maliki government. As far as I know, Iraq still has a democratically elected government and has no tolerance for Al-Qaeda.
    Krugman further explains how this "consensus" and "the argument (for it) was circular". Circular? Again, some one help me here. If there is a "consensus" to go to war (which the left kept telling us there wasn't) after seventeen UN resolutions, the on again off again inspections and it is an "illusion": Isn't that drawing together of international partners something the Left would be pleased with?
    Yes, as long as it falls inside the narrow purview of Leftist political theory. In other words the "consensus" to go to war was the wrong "consensus". They should have consented not to go to war. That would have been the right "consensus". Well, I am sure glad we have Krugman to decide that for us.

    Here is where Krugman takes this nutty idea all the way to Crazytown.
    He is convinced that the correct "consensus" over our economic problems are "... closely associated with the taking of sides... exaggerated and inappropriate."
    Inappropriate? Having a different opinion is inappropriate?
    Yes, because it falls outside the narrow purview of Leftist political theory.
    I guess all the GAO reports, hundreds of economists, think tanks, business leaders, even history itself are totally wrong.
    ".... now, as then we have the illusion of consensus, an illusion based on a process in which anyone questioning the preferred narrative is immediately marginalized".
    That is simply not true. And what is this "preferred narrative" anyways? That the current economic policy is the correct "consensus"? Does the collapse of the Euro, high unemployment, constant fiscal cliffs, our own entitlement mess and the reckless policies of the Fed mean nothing? Does that mean we are to be marginalized because we are of the wrong "consensus"?
    I guess that all depends on what side of  "consensus" you consent to "consensus" upon.

    " Bad economic policy isn't the moral equivalent of a war fought on false pretenses."
    Yes it is Mr. Krugman! It is exactly the moral equivalent.  You speak of a "consensus" based on a false premise only because you disagreed with it. Does not mean you are correct in your assertions. Then, you use the same argument to justify a policy that is bankrupting this country. You cannot have your cake and eat it too Mr. Krugman. Maybe that works in Liberal BizarroWorld but not in the real one and I see your ruse. You do not get to pick and choose "moral equivalents" to supprt your idea. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong and you, Sir, are wrong.
    For the past decade all we have heard from the Left is how the Iraq war and the War on Terror has exploded the national debt and made the country less safe yet miraculously  when we debate our debt vis-a-vis bad economic policy; the argument no longer applies? The moral equivalent is exactly the same!
    Like war, bad economic policy adversely affects people. Like war, bad economic policy gets people killed. Innocent people. Like war, bad economic policy threatens our national security, destroys the fabric of society, infrastructure, separates families and diminishes the educational and health of children. Like war, Mr. Krugman, bad economic policy tends to displace millions of people as is evident from all the foreclosed homes and people out of work. They become economic refugees.

    Don't you dare denigrate the good name of all those who served from all over the world to free a nation from a dictator then hide behind your lofty ideals and a President who is hell bent on destroying The United States of America through a fucking "consensus" of like minded Socialists!
    " What we should have learned from the Iraq debacle was.... you should never rely on supposed authority..."
    Really, Mr. Krugman? Well thank you very much for your "circular argument" You have just come completely 360 degrees to utterly defeat your own thesis. Does that "supposed authority" include you and the NYT just because you are all in "consensus"?
    Yes, it does!
    And if that is so, then it is the "consensus" of this writer that you Mr. Paul Krugman are the Left's ideological village idiot..


....And That Is The Diatribe....