September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Ted and Ed | Main | GSO rally for free speech »

Feb 24, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim Capo

Friedman's editors could have better informed us on this port story by recycling the title of his previous article:

"Empty Pockets, Angry Minds"

People and governments that refuse to spend within their means will always end up being owned by others.


" also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. "

"...after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, 'But these are good Arabs.'"

Krugman's got to be kidding. The Bush Administration has done no such thing, and they've got the record to prove it, and Krugman knows it. Time and time again, Bush has been very careful NOT to lump all Arabs or Muslims in the same category. His stance on the port deal is consistent with what he's said and done.

Krugman, however, has a long and storied history as an over the top sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and a political flamer of the first degree.

Pay more attention to Friedman. He sometimes gets it wrong, but he has a whole lot more credibility here, even considering who publishes his columns.

Ed Cone

I agree that Bush has shown some ability to distinguish between different groups of Arabs and Muslims.

For example, he has kept the focus off of Saudi Arabia, whence came the actual attackers of 9/11, and took us into war against the Iraqis instead. Krugman may argue that this means Bush can't tell the two apart, but that is probably selling him short.

And now, courtesy of this war, we are all getting a nice lesson on the subdivisions of the Arab and Muslim world, as Iraqis of different stripes kill each other.

Yes, you are right, Bubba, Bush can tell one Arab from another.


How astute! Good work, Ed. Keep us informed.

When do we re-install Saddamn so that he can keep all the factions in line?

When we do, does that mean all the pre-war statements the Democrats made about Saddamn, Iraq, and WMD are suddenly operative again?

Ed Cone

A pox on those weak-kneed Democrats who supported this unncessary, poorly-planned, and increasingly disastrous war.

I'm a pragmatist, not an idealogue. I opposed the war, but was more than willing to be wowed by its success. Our military did its job superbly. Bush and his crew, not so much. And so we now face the consequences.

But anyway, we were talking about Krugman's point, which is that invading Iraq in the first place confused the issue of which Muslims were our active enemies in the wake of 9/11. I think that's not such an easy argument to dismiss.


".....invading Iraq in the first place confused the issue of which Muslims were our active enemies in the wake of 9/11. I think that's not such an easy argument to dismiss."

That's assuming you give Krugman any credibility on any issue involving the President. Even if you are inclined to do so, the premise is a major stretch under the best of circumstances.

The credibility Krugman lacks can be found in another NYT writer: Charles Krauthammer. Here's what Dr. K has to say.

I also like what Jonah Goldberg and James Glassman have to say.,0,7287447.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Ed Cone

I understand that Krugman is vehement in his opposition to Bush. But when he's right, he's right. Look around the country. People are freaked about this port thing at a gut level. You can dismiss Krugman's explanation for that, and I'm not saying it's the whole answer, but you can't wish away the phenomenon it purports to explain.

Krauthammer writes for WaPo, not NYT.


"Krauthammer writes for WaPo, not NYT"

Another wishful thinking senior moment on my part.

I miss Safire.

The comments to this entry are closed.