Insert Example Here ==>>

Pual Krugman leaves a puzzle for us in his latest column - is he strangling a strawman, or can his readers help him back this up?

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

Here we go again - moderates and liberals are ready to battle Osama, but Scott McClellan and Sean Hannity have them too terrified to speak the truth.

This should be easy.   Can anyone come up with some examples of (a) a notable moderate or liberal  (or anyone, even Chuck Hagel) warning us that we may have to settle for less than total victory in Iraq?  I don't remember many major Dems arguing that line, but I miss a lot.

And of course, (b) will be the assault on their patriotism.  If the assault could be by an elected Republican or a Cabinet officer, that would be great - since Glenn Reynolds, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly have not been elected, discrediting Bush may not silence them.  And naturally, assaults on their judgment won't count.

Of course, my guess is that this scenario is only playing out in Krug-world; here under the yellow sun, major Dems are not warning of defeat, and then being crushed.  But do let me know - currently, I am stumped as to how to rebut this, since Krugman lacked the space to include a name or two.

UPDATE:  A winner in the comments from Brad R.  But what about the new "Out of Iraq" caucus - when do we crush them remorselessly?  [Links later, or see the comments]

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

TM:

The White House lets its attack dogs on the Internet and talk radio and TV make those kinds of accusations. They let the rightwing noise machine do their dirty work for them.

Glenn Reynolds is the master of the stab-in-the-back thesis:

http://instapundit.com/archives/014934.php

"Kennedy's remark is certainly getting a lot of play around the world, and it can only embolden our enemies and imperil our friends. And as an old Washington hand, Kennedy must have known that it would get that kind of attention, and have that kind of an effect. No wonder Powell is upset."

http://instapundit.com/archives/020810.php

"Various lefty readers email to say that Ward Churchill is not the authentic face of the Left.

I wish I agreed with that. But, sadly, he is its very image today.

When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is "screw 'em," well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.

There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn't a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone."

And Reynolds is one of those who pretends he isn't a wingnut.

[Geek, Esq.]

But, here's one from rightwing nutbag extraordinaire, Zell Miller, speaking before the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION TO LOUD APPLAUSE:

"Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

(APPLAUSE)

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

(APPLAUSE)

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. . . .

[SteveMG]

Geek:
Glenn "pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights, pro-embyronic stell cell research, pro-sexual material, pro-legalization of drugs, anti-Schiavo intervention" Reynolds is part of the White House "right wing noice machine"?

Respectfully, I cannot begin to fathom how someone views Reynolds as a rightwinger. He's clearly anti-leftist; but the political spectrum includes more than leftwing and rightwing.

At least in my world.

SMG

[TM]

Sorry, Geek - is it your point that Hillary (for example) has called for troop withdrawals, but been beaten into silence by Glenn Reynolds?

Or is it your point that Hillary *would* call for troop withdrawals if only Glenn would let her?

There is an alternative explanation which may have eluded Krugman - some fairly serious Dems still subscribe to the "failure is not an option" approach. Kerry himself used to pretend to believe that, back when he was running (what he actually believed then, or now, I don't know). Is Kerry afraid to speak for fear of attacks on his partiotism, or is that just a convenient excuse?

[Human]

With recruitment down, is it time for young Republicans to sign up or shut up? Will you join me in asking these following groups to urge young Republicans to take advantage of the opportunity to join the Armed Forces? The Glorious Leader served his country and would be proud to lead young Republicans to batttle.

# Email the College Republicans National Comittee and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow College Elephants and really support the troops!

# Email the Young Republicans and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow Young Republican Elephants and really support the troops!

# Email the National Teenage Republicans and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow Teenage Elephants and really support the troops!

# Email the Young Americans Foundation and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow Young American Elephants and really support the troops!

# Email the Young Conservatives and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow Elephants and really support the troops!

# Contact the Young Elephants and ask them to put a link the Army's recruiting page (http://www.goarmy.com) on their hompage! Tell them to stop being Yellow Young Elephants and really support the troops!

[SteveMG]

Human:
Hmm, interesting that we've been told (and told and told) recently that liberals supported the intervention into Afghanistan. That Rove's charges had no merit because the progressives supported overthrowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda in that country.

Well, we've still got troops there hunting down the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants.

I assume you're posting a similar message, mutatis mutandis, on liberal/left blogs?

Or does the chickenhawk j'accuse only go one way?

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

TM: The rightwing noise machine caused Dick Durbin to buckle, and got Democrats to turn on their own party chairman. Politically, the Dems have not been a profile in courage.

In terms of political perception by voters, Democrats need to be 'tough' in order to be taken seriously. Indeed, the fact that the Dems are viewed as girly-men (or girly-girls) compared to the Republicans is a big concern when it comes to national security issues.

Given that dynamic, Democrats have been caught over a barrel regarding Iraq. Criticize it, and call for the troops to come home, and you get tagged as "soft on defense" and not being willing to achieve victory. If you go along with the Bush administration, you're on record supporting an increasingly unpopular president on an increasingly unpopular war.

Eventually, things will reach a tipping point, and the calls for the troops to come home will have enough payoff that Dems can disregard the "wimp" taunts.

Shorter Geek: Dems are wimps and cowards, Republicans are bullies and war-mongers. Dems will discover newfound 'courage' to speak up when they're no longer afraid of the consequences.

[Geek, Esq.]

SMG: Reynolds is a libertarian crank. In general, libertarian cranks function as either leftwing nuts who demonize Republicans (Justin Raimondo) or rightwing nuts who demonize Democrats (Reynolds).

[SteveMG]

Geek:
"Dems will discover newfound 'courage' to speak up when they're no longer afraid of the consequences."

So, according to the world of Geek, dems have no principles, no courage, and no ideals that they stand behind.

You been getting those RNC talking points lately?

Wow! and liberals say Limbaugh spews hate against the dems.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

The Democratic party leadership has been woeful. They've been, to be blunt, the Republicans' bitches. Reid and Dean have finally learned the lesson. I hope the rest follow.

[SteveMG]

Geek:
"Reynolds is a libertarian crank. In general, libertarian cranks function as either leftwing nuts who demonize Republicans (Justin Raimondo) or rightwing nuts who demonize Democrats (Reynolds)."

Hmm, you've got this all worked out.

Let's see, this guy goes into Category A, this person goes into B, another goes into C and so forth. Sorta' procrustean political taxonomy.

Not much "le nuance" there (as Kerry might say).

I must say, however, that to include the Professor into the "right wing noise machine" is a bit of Yao Ming-like reach.

Although I am intrigued as to where Raimondo's views re the right and your's diverge. Another topic for another day, perhaps.

SMG

[Brad R.]

Tom-

Here is my all-time favorite example:

A pro-military Democratic congressman's description of the war in Iraq as "unwinnable" unless changes are made sparked anger in House Republicans Thursday.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, in a news conference with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the problems in Iraq are due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable."

Republicans seized on that word, ignoring Murtha's overall point: that more troops and equipment should be sent to Iraq.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the majority leader, accused Murtha of participating in a "calculated and craven political stunt."

"The Democrats are quitting, calling the war unwinnable while we have our men and women and their families sacrificing every day" charged Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Democrats are "basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy," echoed Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

But of course, GOP attacks on others' patriotism are just the figment of Krugman's cuh-raaaaaazy imagination.

[Brad R.]

I should also point out that Murtha didn't even say the war was unwinnable. He said that we needed to change course, or else it would be unwinnable, a perfectly reasonable position.

EVEN THEN, Tom DeLay and his Howling House Banshee Brigade seized on it and attacked him for it.

[Geek, Esq.]

Then there are comments like this:

"The Democrats can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart, and Howard Dean"

from the New York state Republican chair.

[Forbes]

And what's wrong with that statement?

[Foobarista]

To quote a glorious Democrat: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

[Forbes]

SteveMG:
The InstaPundit agrees with the Geek on everything except the war (maybe guns, too), therefore Insty is a rightwingnut.

Get it, makes absolute logical sense...right!

[Geek, Esq.]

Foobarista:

Yes, it's time for the Democrats to fight back and stop dealing with Bush and his crowd in good faith. If the Republican party were led by people like TM, John Cole, and Josh Trevino, then good faith efforts would be warranted.

But the national Republican party is the party of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Dobson, and DeLay.

Which is why I have no problem with Howard Dean insulting them and playing scorched earth. No good can come from doing business with such people.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Democrats are going to behave for the next two years the way the Republicans did between 1992 and 1994.

[Geek, Esq.]

Forbes: If you disagree with Commander McReynolds on the Iraq war, he considers you a traitor. If you dare even criticize the conduct of the war in a way he doesn't like, he considers you a traitor.

That makes him a wingnut. A libertarian with fascistic impulses--a truly wretched combination.

[TM]

Dems will discover newfound 'courage' to speak up when they're no longer afraid of the consequences.

We have leaders and poll readers. Geek, don't start bashing the Dems or I'll tell you what I realy think about W.

OK, good job by Brad R. Fortunately, I have to go watch Pedro and the Yankees, but if anyone sees any obvious response to that CNN story, I'd be delighted (the weaselly "never heard of him" is topping the list right now, but I sure have heard of Tom DeLay.)

[SteveMG]

Geek:
Reynolds is "[a] libertarian with fascistic impulses--a truly wretched combination."

That is so over the top, so intellectually void of any historical understanding of "fascism" that it places all of your other statements on affairs in a deeper and more revealing context.

That is something that one would read on the Democratic Underground.

Just silly.

SMG

[richard mcenroe]

Adult discussion of Iraq? I'm so there! I'll bring the lotions. But only if I get to rub them on Angelina Jolie...

[Forbes]

Yeah Geek, I read Reynolds pretty regularly.

As is said, "Hey, don't hold back...tell us how you really feel!"

Obviously I don't share many of your opinions, but I'd say such remarks, as above, indicate you're rather thin-skinned about all this--unless calling someone names is your idea of an adult-like discussion. Give it a rest.

(I do like to try to push your buttons, but that takes the fun out of verbal combat, IMHO.)

Cheers.

[Foobarista]

Actually, I'm not particularly pro-Dem, but I do believe that a real-life opposition - as opposed to a silly bunch of schoolyard kids - is important for our government to work well. In the absence of a credible opposition keeping them on their toes, Reps have gotten into bad habits and silliness themselves.

As for Dean, he hasn't helped with racist, classist, and factually wrong comments (Reps are whites who've never worked?). He's firing up the base, and bringing in the cash, and the MSM loves him - but it takes more than money to win elections, as Soros discovered to his cost.

[TM]

Here are two stories suggesting that there are plenty of targets out there. Now someone has to find all the attacks on their patriotism:

May 26:

The House of Representatives voted down a measure, by a 128 to 300 vote, that called on President Bush to devise a plan for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"No, it won't pass today, but it will give us a chance to talk about it," said Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the amendment. "It's an opportunity for members of Congress who are frustrated that our troops are being killed for a war that wasn't necessary in the first place and that there is no plan in sight to bring them home."

Despite the overwhelming defeat, about two-thirds of Democrats voted for it and so did five Republicans – a dramatic shift from just a few months ago, when talk of a potential withdrawal was taboo for even the most progressive lawmakers.

And from just yesterday:

House of Representatives announces formation of Out of Iraq caucus - June 21, 2005 4 comment(s). Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to talk about something new and wonderful that has happened in the Congress of the United States of America. I am here to talk about a new caucus that is named Out of Iraq Caucus. I am here to talk about the men and women of this House who have decided they can be silent no longer. I am here to talk about men and women who represent various points of view relative to support for the President from the time that he first announced he was going into Iraq to now. I am here to talk about why we have formed this caucus, what we plan to do...

The statement is rambling and vague, but there they are. The crushing attacks are presumably coming.

And Cong. Murtha, the star of the CNN story, is still with us, starring in a lobbying scandal, backed by Tom DeLay, and standing up for Christian Democrats. He doesn't seem to be scared...

[SaveFarris]

"The Democrats can be accurately called the party of ... Howard Dean"

If Democrats don't think he represents the party, then maybe they shouldn't have ... you know ... made him Chairman.

[Foobarista]

The whole "timetable" silliness indicates just how few Congresscritters have exposure to any military thinking whatsoever. There is a plan for bring the troops home: it's called victory. Anything else, particularly hard deadlines while we're still being engaged in the field, is a wrapper for defeat.

[max]

"A libertarian with fascistic impulses" - I can almost smell the projection in that statement. But I agree it is a wretched combination.

[Brad R.]

Fortunately, I have to go watch Pedro and the Yankees

I think you might wanna retract that. Daddy showed the Yanks who's boss ;-)

[Brad R.]

And Cong. Murtha, the star of the CNN story, is still with us, starring in a lobbying scandal, backed by Tom DeLay, and standing up for Christian Democrats.

Never said Murtha was my hero. The original challenge was:

"Can anyone come up with some examples of (a) a notable moderate or liberal (or anyone, even Chuck Hagel) warning us that we may have to settle for less than total victory in Iraq? I don't remember many major Dems arguing that line, but I miss a lot.

And of course, (b) will be the assault on their patriotism. If the assault could be by an elected Republican or a Cabinet officer, that would be great - since Glenn Reynolds, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly have not been elected, discrediting Bush may not silence them.

And frankly, I did a good job.

I do find it funny, though, that the majority leader would accuse someone in participating in a "calculated and craven political stunt," and later call him "a man of integrity." That's a remarkably Kerry-esque flip-flop if I've ever heard one.

[TM]

Murtha looks like a good example (Hey, Isaid "good job" first). However, the incident is over a year old, and events have passed him by - the "out of Iraq" caucus is up, over 100 Congressfolks voted to bring our troops home, yet the Attack Machine has not intimidated them nor impugned their patriotism. But the day is young!

And (says the LA Times) Dems are divided - Biden condemned the idea of setting a timetable for troops withdrawals. Is he not an adult? Or is he craven?

Or is this more complicated than in Krug-world, where everyone wants to withdraw troops, but some lack Paul's courage and can't say so?

[Cecil Turner]

"Or is this more complicated than in Krug-world [. . .] ?"

Perhaps it's even simpler, as the Globe piece highlights:

While Democrats are increasingly vocal in their criticism of the war, they have been unable to agree on what to do.

Which, it seems to me, perfectly captures both the Dems' problem on Iraq, and the GOP problem with Social Security.

[Dwilkers]

You know what the problem with all this nonsense is? Until the Krugmans of this world and the rest of the Dems stop this ridiculous blather and start defending the US openly, proudly and enthusiastically we're living in a one party state.

Its dangerous and the Dems need to get their heads out.

[Bostonian]

The Democrats haven't yet admitted that we're actually at war and that we did not start this war.

They refuse to acknowledge that Al-Qaeda's goal is the destruction of all non-Islamic secular society.

They babble about oil and Halliburton and Gitmo, everything but the actual reason for the war. No wonder they're not being taken seriously.

[Geek, Esq.]

Democrats have always maintained that we were at war with AQ.

We just don't equate AQ with Baathist Iraq.

Forbes: Do you know who Lynne Stewart is?

Forbes and Steve:
Reynolds regularly accuses domestic opponents of Bush of being "the other side." Ted Kennedy gets called a traitor for comparing Bush's pre-war justifications to the false pretexts that led to escalation in Vietnam. Ward Churchill, who gloated over 911, represents the American left to Reynolds.

In Reynolds' view, those treacherous Democrats would cause us to lose the war if it meant that we would gain power. In Reynolds' view, the press wants us to lose in Iraq.

Reynolds is the master of the softly-spoken slander.

[Cecil Turner]

"Reynolds is the master of the softly-spoken slander."

Serving as a mouthpiece for enemy propaganda, or, to a slightly lesser degree, defeatism, is "treasonous" (i.e., it provides aid and comfort to our enemies). Al Jazeera featuring Durbin comparing Gitmo to a death camp or gulag is a problem. As are the statements claiming Iraq=Vietnam or that the current conflict is "unwinnable." (Though I think there are better examplars than Kennedy's speech.) And it isn't slander to point out something that's true.

[SteveMG]

Geek:
Okay, if you want to word your criticisms in that manner, we can argue that.

But the fascist charge stops all debate. Where do we go from there? "He's a fascist", "No he's not, fascism is collectivist, he's an individualist", "Yes he is, he's a nativist who doesn't entertain dissent!!" "No, yes, no, yes". Ugh.

You're too smart of a fellow as anyone reading your posts can tell to cavalierly throw that term out. When someone on the Right calls your a communist, what's your response? Giggles and eye-rolling, right?

I mean, if Reynolds is a fascist, what do we call a David Duke? A super fascist? Liberally (ahem) throwing around term eventually leads to it becoming meaningless.

Remember Orwell's essay on the term? - here's a link to a reprint of it:

http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/orwell-on-fascism.html

Good reading, as Orwell usually was.

SMG

[max]

"Reynolds regularly accuses domestic opponents of Bush of "being [on] the other side" - geek

Here's a link to a page showing all of the times the phrase "on the other side" has appeared on Glenn Reynold's site.

http://www.instapundit.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=%22on+the+other+side%22

A quick review of this shows many posts using that phrase in reference to 'anti-war' (i.e. objectively pro-Saddam) groups, a few members of the msm (John Pilger) and many instances where it's used in a context not relevant to this discussion (eg. "the people on the other side of the room"). However I could not find one instance where it was used in reference to a Democratic politician.

So the only slander, and not a softly-spoken one, is the product of mr projection change the subject dodge the question and spew venom, esq.

P.S. For a great read on the dishonesty of the msm, this old post is worth another look.

http://instapundit.com/archives/014541.php

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Do you know who Lynne Stewart is?"

She's the recipient of $20,000 of George Soros money.

[Jor]

Blah, blah, blah weak wimpy democrats, blah, blah blah.

If this war was run like a business, by a conservative, the cast of characters running it would have been fired at least a year ago. How about the right-wing noise machine make some noise about replacing the cast of idiots running the show with people who know wtf they are doing, instead of calling the democrats names?

[Joe Mealyus]

JOM: "....in Krug-world, where everyone wants to withdraw troops...."

Cecil Turner: "['Unable to agree what to do'] perfectly captures both the Dems' problem on Iraq, and the GOP problem with Social Security."

And if the Dems on Iraq and the GOP on SS can not fix on a policy, the obvious suggestion is that in both cases they are (at least collectively) unsure of the underlying facts. But Krugman writes his column, as JOM notes, as if it is a settled point that "we need to get out" - in other words, PK couldn't disagree with CT's point more.

(And that's the purpose of the "intimidated Dems" section JOM focuses on - to at once anticipate and refute Cecil Turner's very point).

Krugman's column is perhaps a little confusing, because he uses language like "start talking seriously" and "adult discussion" when his point is that the time for discussion is over. But I think if you read his last four paragraphs carefully it's clear that he's calling for *"the media"* to inform us that "the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility...."

In other words, his implicit criticism of the Dems for being easily intimidated is not nearly as interesting (amazing?) as his explicit criticism of the media for not delivering this message.

[Joe Mealyus]

By the way, as an addendum to my last comment, it would have helped if the NYT editor who wrote "The War President" had chosen something more appropriate, like "Where's Uncle Walter When We Need Him?"

[Cecil Turner]

"(And that's the purpose of the "intimidated Dems" section JOM focuses on - to at once anticipate and refute Cecil Turner's very point)."

The Dems have a plan, but can't announce it because conservatives would question their patriotism? I didn't read it that way, but could be. It would make as much sense as the rest of the piece.

[Joe Mealyus]

"The Dems have a plan, but can't announce it because conservatives would question their patriotism?"

Not quite. He's not saying "the Dems have a plan," he's saying the "the Dems know the score." He's saying "we need to get out" is as true or obvious as "the sky is blue" or "the sea is wet" or "we need higher taxes."

The intimidation factor is presented as the reason why the Dems don't have a plan, or haven't pushed one, or
whatever. He's glossing over this point - his main point is that the *media* need to stress (or "catch up with the public") that "the people who led us to war" have "no credibility" - which will "deprive [them] of their ability to mislead and intimidate." At that point "we" - by which I assume he means not just Paul and his readers, but all the newly unintimidated moderates and liberals - "will be able to start talking seriously about how to get out" - by which perhaps he means put forth a plan.

Clearer now? It all makes perfect sense, logically. Now whether his formulation is, as they say, "reality-based," that's something else entirely.

[Cecil Turner]

"He's not saying "the Dems have a plan," he's saying the "the Dems know the score.""

Okay, but in that case he did not speak to my point, which was specifically that they don't have a plan (or don't know "what to do"). And if not, "you can't beat something with nothing"--which kinda sums up the last presidential campaign.

[Forbes]

Geek: Thanks for your response re: Reynolds. Throwing around the other F word betrays a sober discussion, IMO.

And yes, I do know who Lynne Stewart is. If you don't like the "guilt by association" argument (no pun intended), then condemn the argument as such--or ignore it all together. Dems are ever eager to quote a flakey Jerry Falwell, or raise the specter of David Duke to paint Reps with such broad brushes, why should Reps refrain from doing the same--especially when it generates the reaction that you express? (I think the GBA argument is dumb--and a pox on both houses for using them.) But politics ain't nerfball, so your hypersensitivity is reflective of thin skin, rather than an overly vicious argument.

Much of these type of discussions (Durbin, Rove, et.al.) are pretty boring, anyways--feigned outrage over someone else's allegedly outrageous speech. Forrest Gump said it best, "Stupid is as stupid does."

[Clyde]

Geek, Esq. wrote:

Democrats have always maintained that we were at war with AQ.

We just don't equate AQ with Baathist Iraq.

This is like saying, "We're willing to treat the symptoms but not cure the disease." Or perhaps like having a nest of poisonous snakes in your back yard, and one of them, a rattlesnake, bites your kid and sends him to the hospital.

Do you: (A) Just kill the rattlesnakes in your backyard, leaving the other poisonous snakes alone because "only the rattlesnake bit my kid, so we shouldn't blame the copperheads and coral snakes, who are 'Reptiles of Peace' "? or (B) Clean out the whole damn snake nest so that no other kid in the neighborhood gets bitten.

Hint for Liberals: The correct answer is (B).

The truth is, we are at war with an extremist version of Islam that believes killing infidels (that's you and me, by the way) is A-okay with them. Al Qaeda is only a part of the enemy, and the only way to clean the nest of snakes out is to change the political culture of the Middle East, making it a place where killing infidels is NOT A-okay. That is what the Iraq War (and the political pressures being placed on its neighbors to reform or face the same treatment) was all about.

It's called "seeing the Big Picture," and it's something that the Left has been notoriously poor at doing.

[Joe Mealyus]

"Okay, but in that case he did not speak to my point, which was specifically that they don't have a plan (or don't know 'what to do')."

I think he's saying that they *do* know what to do, but *don't* have (or can put forth) a plan - they have knowledge but are prevented from acting on that knowledge by the opposition's "ability to mislead and intimidate."

Again, this is kind of a guess, because Krugman is putting forward a very complicated model of the current American political situation, and I'm only guessing about the parameters of the forthcoming "adult discussion" - maybe there are some fellow moderates and liberals who don't yet know what we need to do, and need to be discussed to, or maybe not.

My belief is that Krugman decided in his pre-column planning that he would bypass certain objectives for now and come back to them later - part of his new lighter, faster paradigm of editorializing. I would say that the success of JOM's counter-attack - that Krugman's claims about Bush's weapons of mass delusion are implausible - suggests that Krugman's words are stretched a little thin. And since his words are needed in so many places - taxes, Social Security, corporate scandals, Ohio worker's compensation fund investing - it's hard for me to see how Krugman will be able to protect all of his rhetorical territory adequately. It makes you wonder if there is any stop/loss fine print in his NYT contract.... (I'm sure I'm about the 99th person to come up with the "humorous" angle of this paragraph, sorry).