Krugman on Petraeus and other Bush enablers.

[BurtWorm]

If anyone knows the free link, please share it.


http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/opinion/20krugman.html?hp

...

I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he’ll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

[mediaman007]

1. I was thinking about Patraeus evaluating his own work in September.

Can you imagine that he will want American military historians to record him as a failing general? There is no way that Patraeus will judge the surge to be a failure. Any of these commanders have giant-sized egos!

[kevinmc]

2. Link

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/07/paul-krugman-all-presidents-enablers.html

[BurtWorm]

4. Thank you.

[autorank]

3. My impression of this guy is...

...that he's always wanted to implement his version of modern warfare. He got the call at a lousy time
in Iraq but he took the job anyway. Now it's his reputation on the line. If he is candid, Iraq is
finished and so is his war theory, which never had a chance anyway. If he wants a legacy, he should
tell the complete truth and end this tragedy. Then he'd stand for some things that mean a great deal:
sanity, honesty, truth to power, peace. How about it General?

[BurtWorm]

5. That's very well put, autorank.

:applause: