Krugman - Kidding?

Perhaps Andrew Sullivan can award Paul Krugman some sort of "Ostrich" award - the level of denial or duplicity in this column is inexplicable.  His theme is (Brace yourself!) the ongoing failure of the Bush Administration, but get this:

Mr. Bush, of course, bears primary responsibility for the state of his presidency. But there's more going on here than his personal inadequacy; we're looking at the failure of a movement as well as a man. As evidence, consider the fact that most of the conservatives now rushing to distance themselves from Mr. Bush still can't bring themselves to criticize his actual policies. Instead, they accuse him of policy sins — in particular, of being a big spender on domestic programs — that he has not, in fact, committed.

Before I get to the bogus issue of domestic spending, let's look at the policies the new wave of conservative Bush bashers refuses to criticize.

Mr. Bush's new conservative critics don't say much about the issue that most disturbs the public, the quagmire in Iraq. That's not surprising. Commentators who acted as cheerleaders in the run-up to war, and in many cases questioned the patriotism of those of us who were skeptical, can't criticize the decision to start this war without facing up to their own complicity in that decision.

Huh?  As if torn from today's headlines, I tore this story from last week's headlines:

Supporter's Voice Now Turns on Bush

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

"America at the Crossroads" serves up a powerful indictment of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and the role that neoconservative ideas — concerning preventive war, benevolent hegemony and unilateral action — played in shaping the decision to go to war, its implementation and its aftermath. These arguments are made all the more devastating by the fact that the author, Francis Fukuyama, was once a star neoconservative theorist himself, who studied with or was associated with leading neoconservative luminaries like Paul D. Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom, and whose best-selling 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man," was celebrated (and denounced) as a classic neoconservative text on the end of the cold war and the global march of liberal democracy.

Indeed, "America at the Crossroads" represents the latest and most detailed criticism of the Bush administration's war in Iraq — delivered from a conservative point of view. With it, Mr. Fukuyama, who teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, joins a growing number of conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., George F. Will, Bruce Bartlett and Andrew Sullivan, who have voiced doubts about the war. 

Not a bad list.  Here is George Will; William Buckley; and Rob Bartlett (Fine, here is the other Bartlett, or at least, two book reviews).  Andrew Sullivan's change of heart is well known.

Now, in the case of Bruce Bartlett, the book reviews suggest that he may not be a vigorous war critic, although there are hints of his concern, and he was pretty skeptical even in June 2004 (it's hard to believe his confidence has risen subsequently).  But as for the others, whatever is Krugman thinking about?

Well, he was on this theme of attacking the conservative critics of Bush a few weeks back as well - maybe he is holding out for an apology, or roses, or something. 

And while he waits, I guess he is just going to make stuff up.  Whatever.

MORE:  "Commentators who acted as cheerleaders in the run-up to war, and in many cases questioned the patriotism of those of us who were skeptical...".

Dare I ask for cites?  I'm curious to see if any A-list names appear; Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity are not who I am looking for.

UPDATE:  I should have taken the fifth!  Instead, Andrew Sullivan railed against a fifth column.  Hat tip to Tejano C.

Comments

[Terrye]

I am proud to say I have never read an entire Krugman column. The man is annoying.

As for the conservative critics, well they have decided that Bush is not a real conservative and thus must be punished.

Buckley and Novak and Will were never all that crazy about the Bush administration and I watched Sullivan's transformation when it dawned on him that a Republican president was not going to endorse his marriage to his boyfriend. Now that was a shocker.

I don't think that the neocons named themselves, it seems to me they were named by others. Fukuyama was obviously wrong on his "End of History" theory and I really do not think that what he says now matters that much.

I think people have forgotten that we have been in this conflict with Islami jihad for a very long time and over the course of time we have tried the paleo con isolationist route...did not work...the liberal multinational let's just all be friends route...did not work, and that the Bush doctrine is at least showing some signs of success whereas everything else tried to date failed completely.

Brent Scowcroft was one of the real politick guys that councelled Bush 1 not to take out Saddam 15 years ago. Think how different history might have been if no one had listened to Brent.

Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both ignored the mullahs. Well Reagan did sink some Iranian naval vessels in Operation Preying Mantis..but by and large we followed the kind of game plan that George Will, William Buckley and Mr. Fukuyama would approve of today and all it got us was 9/11.

I am no kid myself but sometimes I think it is time for some of these old boys to just hang it up.

[JJ]

"And while he waits, I guess he is just going to make stuff up."

Make up stuff?

Still laughing because even at the fast rate of speed I am comparing the two, isn't it an almost word-for-word plagiarism?

Mimicry is the annoying habit of Cult Left.

Especially mimicry that is circular and ain't got no stinking facts...

[Paul Zrimsek]

Conservatives are rushing to distance themselves from Bush? I thought we were rushing to distance ourselves from people who distance themselves from Bush. Who will volunteer to break the news to Glenn Greenwald?

[maryrose]

Paul Krugman once went mano a mano with Bill O'Reilly on the Tim Russert Show. When faced with his lies and in a debate with Bill,Krugman came off looking like the small narrow-minded whiner that he in fact is. He's seems an angry sort-shades of Hil Clinton.

[kim]

His Nobel should be in Polemics. In '95 he believed Social Security was in crisis. Say no more.
===========================================

[noah]

Krugman is no Hill shill. In a roundtable on MTP, he opposed her saying something like he hoped for a more "true left" candidate for '08.

[TexasToast]

The unpatriotic bit belongs to Frum, Cheney, Rove, Delay - not the apostates you list here. I think Paul is wrong here.

[kim]

South Oklahoma Sootsweep: Hear, hear. The chimney's echoing.
===============================================

[TexasToast]

But there was Sullivan's infamous "fifth column post.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

I hate filters, but Don Luskin's "The Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid" is the best one out there for Paul Krugman.

I used to just read Krugman raw, but after connecting with his legions at the Paul Krugman archive it was a wakeup call for how uncritically his audience treats his work. It's like an army of Max Sawicky's over there. Paul speak, they listen.

Luskin's conjecture with Krugman is priceless. When Luskin went to Krugman's book signing to call him on his crock of a book, Krugman looked liked a cornered rat in a cage.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Right after 9/11 Fukuyama signed the PNAC letter urging an overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government even if evidence didn't link it to 9/11.

Fukuyama didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, as it was executed.

Since then he has teetered around with various positions, but I still do not know what he would have done differently if he wanted to overthrow Saddam, but not in the way Rumsfeld had planned.

Perhaps news reports are vague because they want to sell his book. lol

[windansea]

Hey, Big Spender: Should we have known that President Bush would bust the budget? (Peggy Noonan, March 16, 2006, Opinion Journal)

This week's column is a question, a brief one addressed with honest curiosity to Republicans. It is: When George W. Bush first came on the scene in 2000, did you understand him to be a liberal in terms of spending?

I, for one, am perfectly willing to admit that I didn't forsee the WoT and the 2% of GDP increase in spending on Defense it would cause, but, on the other hand, I thought the President would have enough votes in the Senate to pass partial SS privatization, which is a real budget buster in the short term. Most importantly, I was sure that W would drastically reduce our taxes.

At any rate, given that Ms Noonan believes, for some reason, that Ronald Reagan was a conservative and George W. Bush isn't, it's perhaps helpful to just compare the two: when Ronald Reagan left office in 1988 he was dunning us 18.1% of GDP to pay for a federal government that spent 21.2% of GDP. In 2004, the last year for which I could find numbers, George W. Bush had lowered our tax burden to 16.3% of GDP-- a level last reached in 1959--to pay for a government that spent 19.8 of GDP.

There doesn't seem to be any coherent reason why a president's conservatism should be judged by how much he spends, but if you're using that as your yardstick then Mr. Reagan was the most liberal president since FDR during WWII and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the most conservative since Nixon.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2006/03/a_thousand_poin.html

[richard mcenroe]

maryrose -- If Bill O'Reilly can beat you in a public debate, you should probably get out of the opinion business.

That's like being the loser in a war between Italy and Albania...

[Joe Mealyus]

JOM: "Dare I ask for cites?"

PK: (from his latest):

"At a time when most commentators, even liberals, believed that the Bush administration was making an honest case for war, I suggested that the administration was exaggerating the threat. At a time when quite a few commentators, again including liberals, were enthusiastic about the idea of throwing America’s military weight around, I argued that the occupation of Iraq would be much harder than the invasion; I predicted that the Bush administration would botch the occupation and the reconstruction; and I warned that the war would weaken America’s position in the world. I wish I hadn’t been right on all these points, but I was.

Why did I get it right, when so few other commentators did?"

I don't have a comment, really.

[kim]

Let me echo your 'no comment'.
====================

[kim]

Afghanistan and Iraq will forge a new variety of politics which will be variously applied in other religious nations, and that will be a Demotheocracy. They will vote, but Sharia(or other religious law) will be constitutive. Once well implemented it is likely to be a force for peace and progress.
====================================

[kim]

Purple fingered majestic sharia.

I've mentioned before that I expect future public spirituality to be in form Confucian; private spirituality, Buddhistic; holidays in the Hindu manner, and the various cults of Abraham will be marginalized as too violent.
=====================================

[kim]

By the way, I claim thoroughgoing agnosticism as attested by my faith in the philosophical principle of skepticism, and Chesterton allows me to skeptical of skepticism. Who could ask for anything more?
====================================