McArdle Versus Krugman

I have to say that I found McMegan's attacks on Paul Krugman to be pretty weak. Apart from pointing to some shortcoming of his New York Times columns that are intrinsic to the format, the gripe is, I guess, that he doesn't write "about economics" anymore. But Megan also derides his writing about health care and inequality. Or maybe she's lumping those into the "not economics" category because she doesn't agree with his conclusions. We also seem to be dealing with the view that it's incredibly gauche of Krugman to be going on and on about how George W. Bush is really bad at running the country.

This, though, is a pretty important topic!

And though Krugman's position on the "does Bush suck?" question is a fairly banal one in September 2007, he's been consistently -- and presciently -- adhering to this view even in times like September 2003 when it wasn't a popular one. And, yes, he writes about non-economics subjects sometimes, too. He wasn't, after all, hired to write the "economic scene" column, he was hired to be an op-ed columnist. Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman were less liberal. Or would write less about the topics he has liberal views on. He still does, after all, do some long format writing like this New York Review of Books piece on health care, this one on Social Security, this piece for The Nation on class stratification, this Rolling Stone essay on inequality, etc.

Comments

"He wasn't, after all, hired to write the "economic scene" column"

Actually he was hired to write about overseas economics

In Krugman's own words:

""I was hired to write about economic problems overseas, not in our domestic area"

http://www.swans.com/library/art11/gberes06.html

Posted by Dave | September 5, 2007 4:26 PM

I posted this at Megan's place, but if you need another explanation as to Krugman's failings as a columnist, I'll post it here, too:

The constant Bush bashing would be much more tolerable if it were empirically grounded. Too often, however, Krugman's mania is little different than, say, R. Emmett Tyrell's worst days during the Clinton Administration.

I gave up on Krugman after he wrote a piece several years ago which took up the manner by which our intrepid President earned his fortune. Now, for someone like Krugman, this is the equivalent of a poor fastball right over the middle of the plate for Barry Bonds in his prime. The story is replete with taxpayer subsidies for the wealthy, abusive eminent domain, and the widespread nature of these practices in municipalities across the land, often sold to the public via transparently phony arguments about subsequent economic benefits. Krugman should have been able to write the definitive piece on the topic, with President Bush's participation as the hook.

Instead, Krugman writes a screed which barely addresses the most important part of the story, in terms of public policy, and instead spends paragraphs to insinuate without basis that there was some type of criminal behavior involved, clearly ignoring that the real scandal is how this type of wealth generation is perfectly legal, and extremely common. So common, in fact, that the people who sign Krugman's checks, the management of the NYT, engaged in the very practice themselves. Not that Krugman saw fit to mention that, of course. It was then I decided that Krugman had become a common hack, and I haven't read anything by him since.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 4:30 PM

McMegan clearly is the black sheep of the Atlantic blogging family. She just doesn't fit in. Note that her comment policy is far more restrictive than it is here even though she is ostensibly an employee of the same publication as Yglesias. One of these bloggers is not like the other . . .

Posted by Sprezzatura | September 5, 2007 4:34 PM

From McArdle's blog:

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry

Posted by Sprezzatura | September 5, 2007 4:36 PM

Re: comments

At least she allows comments. Sullivan doesn't even do that.

Posted by Steve Balboni | September 5, 2007 4:43 PM

Sprezz, McMegan's comment policy, as written, didn't seem that restrictive (if there was something there that couldn't be summarized as "don't be an ass", I don't remember it).

Obviously, if she really is censoring for ideas rather than for tone (or that'd be inappropriate to the medium, but do you believe that is happening?

Posted by Warren Terra | September 5, 2007 4:45 PM

That's not me; that's the spam filter. I haven't deleted any comments in days; I'll only go there if the vitriol gets out of hand again. Normally, I make the junk comments live every few hours. But I can't find yours.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 5, 2007 4:52 PM

I basically agree with Matt. In his economics columns, Krugman plays the vital role of challenging the often ridiculously audicious claims by the Administration, often related to the benefits, scope or justifications for more and more tax cuts. It is true that he cannot always explore the issues in as much depth as is required because of the format, but that is a pretty weak criticism.

In his non-economics columns, he is a bit more hit and miss, IMO. He gets some stuff wrong in his foreign policy writing and he tends to overly attribute problems to Bush's policies at times. However, the big picture is that he has consistently called out Bush for using misleading arguments and "data" in support of bad policies virtually across the board, including as Matt noted even when it was not popular to do so. I consider that pretty valuable stuff.

Posted by Greg | September 5, 2007 4:52 PM

At least she allows comments. Sullivan doesn't even do that.

McMegan deletes all comments that call her a fascist - even when she writes columns in defense of torture (which in my book, makes her a fascist).

Posted by fasteddie | September 5, 2007 5:00 PM

This is all about ego and face-saving. Nobody who wasn't saying it then wants to admit how obviously terrible Bush was in 2000-2003.

I think McArdle and her fellow travelers would be happy to admit that the Bush regime was proven to be horrible a posteriori. They get to wash their hands, condescend about the nature of government, and offer bullshit cynicism about the world, as if they expected nothing else but the worst.

That's why people like Krugman really irritate them. Since he's not a paranoid leftist (like myself), he has to be patronized away, as if he somehow disappointed the eager and open-minded with his quest against Bush.

It has very little to do with policy, and has everything to do with what you actually think like. Bush and his supporters were a black hole of logic, empathy and common sense then and now, and it was obvious to 99% percent of people who count that this was the case.

Posted by Thomas | September 5, 2007 5:03 PM

In 2003, before the War started, Krugman nailed the reason for not starting the war.

This was the reason that Matt failed to grasp. The reason that the Mustache of Understanding failed to understand. And I haven't checked, but I suspect it was the reason that Matts bff McArdle also failed to grasp.

Since then, Matt has tried, dodging his own Incompetence, to claim that Krugman was wrong about that reason and that Vizzini was correct.

Krugman however, knew and wrote before the war that examining Bush's history before the Presidency and during, that Bush was going to screw things up monumentally.

So I don't see screeds when I read Krugman. I see analysis taken to the next level and made real.

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2007 5:15 PM

the upside of all the links by Matt to the glibertarian (and objectively pro-torture) McMegan is there are a proportionate decrease in the links to the pro-torture bigots and racists over at Marty Putz Weekly.

small favors, etcetera

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | September 5, 2007 5:17 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey, although I'm less certain with regard to Gore; if he hadn't put forth a detailed 200 page economic manifesto, I may have followed my inclination to do nothing in support of George W. Bush, and in 2000 I voted in a state which was pretty close.

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement. To those that say things could not be any worse than what George W. Bush is likely to produce, well, you simply have very limited imaginations. If that makes me a purveyer of cynical bullshit to you, again, you need to recharge your imagination, and you really need to re-evaluate the pros and cons of cynicism.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 5:18 PM

Megan McArdle...Rarely has one person done so much with so little.

If she allowed comments on her blog, I'd point out that it's "asymmetric information," not "asymmetrical information"...that's what you get when you hire an economics blogger with no economics training...

Posted by Mr. Noah | September 5, 2007 5:24 PM

"I have to say that I found McMegan's attacks on Paul Krugman to be pretty weak."

That's a phrase that's been said many times before and will be said many times again.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | September 5, 2007 5:26 PM

Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman were less liberal.

Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman had been proved less fucking right. Perhaps if she closes her eyes tightly and wishes very very hard, that may come to pass.

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

That's awfully nice of you. If it's fucked up in 30 Friedmans, are we allowed to come over and kick you up the rear?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 5:42 PM

Yeah, Krugman needs to stick to his area of expertise. Just like Thomas Friedman does. He's a middle eastern expert who understands the necessary dynamic of killing Iraqis to send the message of "suck on this".

Posted by AnotherBruce | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey

This, in a nutshell, is why we are so fucked up right now. Thanks, Will Allen, for reminding me of why I hate people like you.

Posted by commie atheist | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

Ms McArdle is to Paul Krugman as...

Boonesfarm is to Chateau Lafitte

Really.

Posted by kennyp | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

"How awful has Bush been?

Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement."

I think Congress needs to pass a law requiring every single person who says or writes something like that to have I AM A FUCKIN' IDIOT branded on their foreheads. 15 years from now the Persian Gulf might be a better place. 15 years from now we may be selling cigars to the folks from Alpha Centauri. 15 years from now I may be having sex with Hillary Duff. There is no way to know what's going to be 15 years from now and defending or excusing an action with the unknowable is magical thinking at its most infatile.

If you want to defend the President on Iraq, defend him on the damn merits.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 5, 2007 5:48 PM

Wait...are we talking about Jane "2x4" Galt here?

Posted by liberal | September 5, 2007 5:48 PM

Krugman = Coulter. The people on the right fawning over Coulter have direct equivalents on the left fawning all over Krugman. (And, yes, if you think Krugman is a great columnist, please be assured that there is a Freeper equivalent of you.)

Of course, given our media's left-wing bias, Krugman is on the op-ed page of the Ny Times and Coulter writes for WorldNetDaily, but that's another story.

BTW, not only is Krugman's political punditry dumb, but his economic punditry is incredibly weak also. A couple of years ago, he was predicting stagflation. A couple of years before that, he was talking about deflation and a liquidity trap. Perhaps he should just change his name to Chicken Little... who knows, the economy can't stay good forever, and one of these years Krugman might even have a column that accurately predicts economic activity.

Posted by Al | September 5, 2007 5:49 PM

Isn't this just a retread of "Krugman is shrill"? And hasn't that always been wrong? I mean, some guy attempted to make a career of Krugman-bashing a while back; I can't remember his name or anything he ever came up with. Krugman is just right, and not afraid to call it as he sees it.

Posted by Davi d in NY | September 5, 2007 5:50 PM

"adhering to this view even in times like September 2003 when it wasn't a popular one"

You don't really think Bush bashing wasn't popular with NYT readers in 2003, do you? It was in 2000-02 and 2004-07, and I don't remember 2003 being any different.

Posted by ostap | September 5, 2007 5:50 PM

Commie atheist, being hated by you is quite likely an honor. Thanks.

Gosh, I didn't know "pseudonymous" was synonymous with "fatuous".

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 5:53 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey
--------------

The sheer idiocy of this sentiment is awe inspiring.

Posted by rootless2 | September 5, 2007 5:58 PM

Gosh, I didn't know "pseudonymous" was synonymous with "fatuous".

Ah, that famed glibertarian wit. Can I take it, then, that you're one of those glibs who believes dumb actions should have no consequences?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 5:59 PM

Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years, you really can't comment with any degree of precision as to the wisdom of removing the Baathists by force from in Iraq, since the removal of the Baathists will have inevitably changed what the Persian Gulf looks like in 2020 or so. Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:01 PM

I watched Megan on Bloggingheads and I was surprised that she wasn't this venomous right-wing attack dog. She smiled and laughed, decried Rudy Giuliani, and let the other Head do most of the talking. But I did come away with a feeling about how the right comes with people who put a smiley face on some of the worst human instincts. David Brooks comes to mind here, of course, and maybe Ross Douthat. Is there really a defense for torture that a culturally hip person might make? That conflation of amiability and vileness can be really disturbing.

Posted by walt | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Will Allen admits he voted for Bush twice and hasn't read Krugman since that one column.

Wow.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, little man. You're bathing in it.

Posted by pie | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Krugman has been prescient about many things and probably has the highest batting average of any columnist over the last eight years.

One of his greatest hits received far too little attention -- deducing that the California electricity crisis was caused by deliberate price and supply manipulation and not by a capacity shortage (which was the accepted conventional wisdom).

Posted by Ben Brackley | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Uh-huh. And when was the last time a magazine as prominent as the Atlantic took the right side of the press to task for repetition of conservative themes? (Silence.) Thought so.

Worse, for every Krugman there are two or three Mark Steins, three or four Charles Krauthammers, five or six David Frums and more than a few David Brooks. (There is only one Maureen Dowd, thank God.) It was like this during the Clinton administration at is has in many ways become worse under Bush.

Ms. McArdle stands as a stunning example of a prominent conservative position in America: only conservatives are allowed to speak, even regarding matters of which they know nothing or on which they have been consistently proved wrong. Anybody who writes something contrary is to be chided for even speaking. It's not enough that conservative viewpoints dominate almost all corners of the mainstream media, they must be the sole voice therein.

Posted by seeker6079 | September 5, 2007 6:03 PM

"Al" is full of false equivalence today.

(Is "Al" here the same as the paid right-wing troll over at Washington Monthly?)

Posted by theo | September 5, 2007 6:03 PM

No, "Will allen" is synonymous with "fatuous"--but thank you for playing. The thesaurus also offers "megan Mccardle" and "al" as commonly used variants.

I think the thing that really bothers right wingers about Krugman is that he *has a memory* and he writes like it matters. Look at Broder, or Hiatt, or any other op ed writer. They all can count, but they can't add. They *could* write a column every week that truthfully assessed the situation--any damn situation--and slowly, over time, they'd have to admit that this country is being run into the ground by George Bush and his policies. Just acknowledging the staggering fiscal costs of the war in Iraq alone would make any honest writer spill rivers of blood stained ink *if every column reflected growth and thoughtful education* as Krugman's do.

Look, Krugman started out pretty conservative. If he's moved into the permanently "shrill" column its because events and deeds have made him do so. Any honest writer with a memory would have to add up all the missteps, crimes, bizarre deeds, and failures of the bush administration and its flunkies and come to the conclusion that we are, as a country, well and truly f*ck*d. Not to do so requires a standard of unseriousness that only the megan mccardle's can admire. She will write the same pap, without learning anything, for as long as someone pays her to do so. To see her nipping at krugman's heels like a chihuahua at a great dane is truly comical.

aimai

Posted by aimai | September 5, 2007 6:04 PM

Can I take it you are the sort of moron who makes threats of kicking people's rears on the internet?

Sheesh, it really doesn't get any more stupid than that....congratulations, you are the winner!

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:05 PM

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement. To those that say things could not be any worse than what George W. Bush is likely to produce, well, you simply have very limited imaginations. If that makes me a purveyer of cynical bullshit to you, again, you need to recharge your imagination, and you really need to re-evaluate the pros and cons of cynicism.

I don't usually delurk and comment but you are truly a dumbass. If the choices were really between expected disaster and imagined disaster, assuming you couldn't overcome your paranoid and partisan fears of imagined disaster and vote Democrat, wouldn't you have been better off not voting?

Posted by Duane | September 5, 2007 6:06 PM

"Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years,"

FUCKIN' IDIOT, let me see if I can put this in terms even someone as stupid as you can understand.

It's possible that killing you might result in some net positive benefit for mankind 15 years from now. Somehow, in some way, by design, accident or random chance, murdering you could directly or indirectly produce some action or inaction that produces a better world. I don't know what that better world would look like or even how your death would produce it, but it's still possible.

So, should someone put a bullet in your brain or not?

I apologize to everyone for the violent nature of this post, but good grief, I don't know what else could possibly penetrate such moronic thinking.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 5, 2007 6:09 PM

Will Allen: "Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years, you really can't comment with any degree of precision as to the wisdom of removing the Baathists by force from in Iraq, since the removal of the Baathists will have inevitably changed what the Persian Gulf looks like in 2020 or so. Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation."

This is Allen's idea of a DEFENSE of Bush? "He spent $500 billion and 4000 American lives, but there's a 50-50 chance that in the process he made things better rather than worse." Jesus Christ.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 5, 2007 6:12 PM

"a prety impressive beard."

I guess Matt's column isn't the only one never spellchecked.

You'd think The Atlantic could afford to get a spell checker integrated into the software...I mean, they are a PUBLISHING company, right?

Geez...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 6:12 PM

Look, Krugman started out pretty conservative. If he's moved into the permanently "shrill" column its because events and deeds have made him do so.

Krugman really hasn't moved that far. He was a bête noir of the anti-globalist left during the late years of the Clinton administration, and while you might be able to tease out distinctions between him and, say, Brad DeLong, he's still more or less neoliberal in economics.

His big point, in the introduction to The Great Unraveling, was the one he picked up from Kissinger's doctoral thesis: that the Bush administration exercised power in ways that disrupt existing structures. (Call it radical, call it revolutionary, it's the same principle.) In that regard, he anticipated Suskind's reporting on the concept of the 'reality-based community'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 6:13 PM

Yeah. Wow. A prominent columnist plainly lies in an effort to insinuate criminal activity by those with whom he differs with politically, and somebody decides to stop reading him. Crazy, I know....

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:14 PM

I apologize to everyone for the violent nature of this post, but good grief, I don't know what else could possibly penetrate such moronic thinking.

The minds of fascist collaborators like Will Allen are indeed difficult to penetrate, by any conventional intellectual means.

Which leaves us with sharp pointy sticks.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 6:15 PM

Will Allen:

, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice

I have absolutely no patience with or sympathy for people like yourself. The notion that, "Bush sucks but Gore/Kerry would have been worse", given Bush's track record, is so incredibly pathetic, asinine, intelligence-insulting, etc. that I can barely contain myself when I encounter it. On the scale of stupidest-fucking-things-I've-ever-heard, it is on a level with creationist idiocy.

In short, you are a fucking idiot if you think Gore or Kerry would have been worse than Bush.

By the way, John Kerry spells his name K-e-r-r-y. This may seem like a pedantic point to you, but since the subject at hand is politics, and you're offering your opinion on politics, and I assume you want to be taken at least semi-seriously (difficult to believe given your fucking ridiculous Kerry/Gore-would-have-been-worse-than-Bush proposition), then one who finds themselves in such a position should know the difference between John Kerry and Bob Kerrey, another well-known Democratic US senator.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:16 PM

Good God. I could see one not voting for any of the above in the last two presidential elections but trying to claim one knew Bush would be a terrible president and voted for him anyway, now THAT's got to be the squirreliest position I've ever heard. And this is someone who gets paid to "think?"

Posted by digitusmedius | September 5, 2007 6:18 PM

"From McArdle's blog:

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

Yeah, and last night, I got the exact same thing from Matt's blog.

And whenever I get that, my post never shows up.

I'm beginning to suspect that it has to do with links in the post. If you make a post with multiple links, as my post did, it gets held until somebody figures out whether it's spam.

At least, I assume that's the case because my regular posts don't get held.

Except apparently nobody ever bothers to figure it out, so the post disappears into the bit bucket.

Which is just stupid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 6:20 PM

Gore would have been worse than Bush? Jesus fuckin' Christ I still can't get over that.

If you can't tell the difference between Gore and Bush, I'd like you to sample my special shit-stuffed cannoli. Most people stuff their cannoli with ricotta but I swear you won't be able to taste the difference.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:20 PM

Hey Bruce,

You're forgetting the 2.3 million Iraqi refugees, the invaluable terrorist advances in IED technology, and the shredding of America's credibility (and thus ability to be a rational actor / positive force for change) to name just 3.

Posted by MaryCh | September 5, 2007 6:24 PM

You're forgetting the 2.3 million Iraqi refugees, the invaluable terrorist advances in IED technology, and the shredding of America's credibility (and thus ability to be a rational actor / positive force for change) to name just 3.

yeah but GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE! he would have killed a bazillion Iraqis, made 10 million of them refugees, and shown insurgents how to build the most effective IEDs ever!

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:26 PM

I'm sorry, but there simply is no way to "lie" and then to "insinuate criminal activity" by the maladminstration.

They are outright criminals. They would roast newborn babies (but never preborns!) on a spit if it would bring them more power.

Darth Cheney and his witless puppet have already gone out of their way to break laws in their paranoid delusions.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 6:26 PM

Well, Mike, if shooting you had a 50-50 chance of heading off a terrific catastrophe, and you were as big an A-hole as the Baathists, or you appear to be in this thread, sorry, Mikey, but you gotta' go!

Bruce, I won't use the imagery employed by Mikey, since it doesn't appear to be your preferred tone of discourse, but whether a 50-50 chance made it worthwhile is entirely dependent on what odds one attributed to a far worse outcome than what has taken place. My view is that a despotically Islamic Persian Gulf, which the world demands oil extraction from for the next the next several decades, in an environment in which massively destructive technology becomes more ubiquitous with eash passing year, has a far greater chance than 50% to result in violence which makes the current level look almost quaint. In other words, my view of the manageability of the status quo ante, in pursuit of a slow evolution, is quite different than yours.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:27 PM

What would the reaction have been if Will Allen had posted that he thought Al Gore would be a horrible president and so he voted for Ralph Nader?

I suspect the same people now after him for voting for someone he believed would be a horrible president would have a different take on the above.

Then again there's some saying about foolish consistency and hobgoblins, but what do I know?

Posted by keatssycamore | September 5, 2007 6:28 PM

LOLOLOLOL

Krugman is so far out of Megan McCardle's league that the very idea of her criticizing him is a bit like PeeWee Herman threatening Mike Tyson, i.e. the outcome is predictable with nearly apodictic certainty. At best she can play it for a few laughs, but to the extentt she thinks she's going to lay a glove on him, she is deluded.

Non-liberals hate Krugman because he is brilliant and he makes them look like fools with arguments they have neither the capacity nor the facts to refute.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 5, 2007 6:28 PM

Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

TRANSLATION: It sucks now but there's a 1 in a gazillion chance that a rabbit will come out of a hat.

Posted by Steve J. | September 5, 2007 6:30 PM

Will Allen, you are more stupid than slug but go on with your supid sluggery.

Posted by Jennifer | September 5, 2007 6:30 PM

What would the reaction have been if Will Allen had posted that he thought Al Gore would be a horrible president and so he voted for Ralph Nader?

I don't know what's the point of your question or how that can tell us anything meaningful regarding his original proposition.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:34 PM

Renato, you apparently have gotten the misimpression that I have concern pertaining to whom you direct your patience and sympathy. I don't. I apologize for the extra "e", and, heavens, it is an error that I have made a couple times out of the several hundred that I written his name. As I stated above, there is a chance I would vote for Gore if given the same choice again.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:35 PM

I never read Krugman's column. I get all my "business" news from Neil Cavuto. Gotta love them Hooter's chicks!

Posted by 25%ER® | September 5, 2007 6:37 PM

"McArdle Versus Krugman" - comic match of the decade. Hi, Torture Girl.

Posted by Jennifer | September 5, 2007 6:37 PM

You know, I can forgive someone for voting for Bush the first time. But after four years of Bush, you had to know what you were in for.

If you voted for Bush in 2004, you forfeited all right to (credibly) complain about him. Kerry had faults, but at least he wasn't intent on legalizing torture, acting like a dictator, and generally being a dangerous idiot (because anyone with Bush's low IQ having the power to declare war or launch nukes is by definition dangerous).

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:38 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey,

I am floored. At this point a plate of cold beans running on the communist ticket should inspire more loyalty than Bush.

It's amusing to cackle that the public gets the government it deserves, but in your case you voted for a guy you thought would be terrible. TERRIBLE. And he is! Jesus.

I understand "anybody but X" voting, but when you think the person you cast your vote for is terrible maybe you want to write someone in or something.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 5, 2007 6:44 PM

Hey Will Allen,

Do you have more information or detail on the Krugman column you refer to on your post at 4:30? Your description's too vague to find it and I want to check it out myself. Just a few more details and I can TimesSelect it.

Thanks!

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 6:46 PM

Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

You know, your threshold for success could be fulfilled by creating a huge mess in the Persian Gulf, then waiting 15 years, and when things are not as bad as they were at their worst, say, "See! Things got better!"

I'd claim, for example, that things in Jordan and Syria are better now than they were 15 years ago. Of course, Bush's foreign policy decisions had nothing to do with that.

Posted by Tyro | September 5, 2007 6:47 PM

Sorry, renato, but anyone who sided with the nuclear freeze movement in the early '80s, in the manner Kerry did, had already demonstrated his idiocy to a point that he makes the current idiot/occupant of the White House look like Abe Freakin' Lincoln. I still can't believe the Democrats nominated him. As to torture, you apparently are the sort of moral titan who sees contracting out the torture, in the manner of the Clinton Administration and others, as being somehow superior.

Righteous Bubba, I normally do, and I somewhat regret not doing so in 2000. If the Democrats had not nominated Kerry in 2004, I probably would have.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:53 PM

Hey, hey, settle down. The Will Allen bashing here is no fairer than Megan's Krugman bashing. The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian.

As for Krugman, the most important thing about Krugman is that he plays by the conservative pundit rules instead of by the liberal pundit rules. Under the liberal pundit rules, all liberal pundits must write 1 out of 3 columns criticizing democrats to maintain their "credibility." Conservatives love to enforce this rule against liberal pundits, but it's also ingrained within the liberal punditry itself.

Conservative pundits, on the other hand, never focus on their side. There is no need for balance or independence written into their DNA. And they are never called shrill, no matter how partisan they are.

Krugman has recognized that Bush's gross inability to be the president is the biggest story going. Why shouldn't he be writing about the president who has set the world afire, wrecked the deficit, redistributed vast sums of wealth to the rich, and poisoned our environment with loose regulations? Is there something more important to write about?

Posted by pj | September 5, 2007 6:53 PM

The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian

Doctrinaire libertarians are, by definition, dumbshits.

Posted by Crabbe and Goyle | September 5, 2007 6:56 PM

some guy attempted to make a career of Krugman-bashing a while back; I can't remember his name or anything he ever came up with.

Donald Luskin, use to run what he called "the Krugman truth squad". He was quite the moron, Atrios use to make fun of him a lot.

About the biggest thing he ever came up with was Krugman said something was 3.4%, and the correct amount was 3.1%

Posted by chris/tx | September 5, 2007 7:01 PM

Will Allen wrote: As to torture, you apparently are the sort of moral titan who sees contracting out the torture, in the manner of the Clinton Administration and others, as being somehow superior.

Ah, the old "Clinton did it too" protest. So popular yet so weak.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:01 PM

The Will Allen bashing here is no fairer than Megan's Krugman bashing. The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian.

Ah, we know. Which is why his self-excusing explanation next year of why he voted for Giuliani -- we all know it's coming -- will be one for the ages.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 7:05 PM

You don't really think Bush bashing wasn't popular with NYT readers in 2003, do you?

In 2002-2003 the NYT was objectively pro-war, so any of their columnists who spoke against it deserve credit.

Also, what can you say about a person who thinks that advocating nuclear freeze is worse than advocating nuclear strikes against countries with whom we are not at war, and who are not committing aggressive acts against us?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:05 PM

Tyro, I think you entirely underestimate how bad the situation was in the Gulf prior to the removal of the Baathist from Iraq.

Jeapardude, the column is from 2002 or 2003, and it pertains to Bush's involvement with the Texas Rangers, specifically how Bush received a % of the profits from the sale of the team in excess of his capital contribution, and how this is indicative of criminal activity. I cannot believe that Krugman is so ignorant that he doesn't realize that rainmaking in legislatures is an all too common and perfectly legal method of wealth acquisition, and that was Bush's contribution to the enterprise. The shame of it is that the practice is especially noxious BECAUSE it is perfectly legal, and Krugman has exactly the sort of expertise to demolish the ridiculous arguments put forth in support of these terrible subsidies and awful uses of eminent domain, but he was so set upon portraying Bush as Satan that he instead spends several paragraphs dishonestly insinuating criminal activity, and of course never mentions that the NYT engages in the same practices. He's really no better than Robert Novak.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:07 PM

So Will, going back to your first point - can you "empirically ground" your statement that the process by which Bush earned his fortune is "extremely common"? And how many times have you taken advantage of it?

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 7:08 PM

When the best thing you can say about a president is that, domestically he's as bad as you expected, but internationally you have to wait 15 years (i.e., almost four more presidential terms) to judge, what are you defending? A fantasy. Whose? His? Bush is an idiot, as was obvious to some of us in 2000.

And don't skim over "domestically" so glibly. He's a disaster, the people around him were and are disasters, the Republican Party is a disaster, and the right-wing commentariat who defend them are disasters.

"Bush has made some mistakes" doesn't begin to address it.

Posted by MrWonderful | September 5, 2007 7:09 PM

Ah, no, Jeapordude, it is not "weak" to note that farming out torture to foreign powers is not morally superior to practicing the torture onself. In fact, a case can be made that while both practices are unacceptable, the people who engage in the latter at least make themselves more accountable.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:12 PM

Shorter Will Allen: Paul Krugman criticized George Bush over something he deserved to be criticized for, but not in the exact, specific way I would have criticize him (I'm not saying I would have), so therefore Krugman is as bad as Robert Novak, who committed treason by helping to blow a CIA operative's cover.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:16 PM

Heya, Will. Is the world better off now than it was than in the early '70s when Kerry pushed withdrawing from Vietnam?

Hell yah! Those commies lost BIG TIME! Kerry was a firking GENIUS! (I assume you're in the "liberal backstab lost us the war" crowd.)

/end snark.

Do you begin to see how very, very foolish you sound with your "call me in fifteen years" stuff?

Posted by tydanosaurus | September 5, 2007 7:19 PM

it is not "weak" to note that farming out torture to foreign powers is not morally superior to practicing the torture onself. In fact, a case can be made that while both practices are unacceptable, the people who engage in the latter at least make themselves more accountable.

That is hilarious!!! How are Bush and Co. even remotely accountable for the torture they commit? If it were up to them, we wouldn't have even an inkling of an idea of what they do.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:20 PM

Bush administration farms out AND did torture themselves. So are they morally superior or morally inferior to themselves?

Posted by JEopardude | September 5, 2007 7:21 PM

Never done it myself, ignoreland, but I personally know at least a half dozen people who have made millions by successfully lobbying legislatures for subsidies on behalf of businesses which the lobbyist made no capital contribution to, and I'm just talking state legislatures. How the hell do you think the millionaires on K street in D.C. became millionaires? Powerball?

A guy who successfully marshals political support for subsidies worth hundreds of millions is himself easily worth tens of millions. It's a nasty practice, but all too common, and perfectly legal.

blobby

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:25 PM

Uh, no, PAT. Krugman dishonestly insinuated criminal activity where he very, very, likely knew no such criminal activity existed.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:29 PM

Just me pointing out the daily McArdle link. Has Andrew posted his yet?

Heh.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 7:30 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:33 PM

Hey, three weeks ago there was a rumor that Times Select was being killed freeing Paul Krugman.

What ever happened to that?

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2007 7:34 PM

The amazing thing is that Will Allen's first post was quite astute. I think Duane nails the problem though: the man can't pull the lever for a democrat. Probably because he might raise his taxes a few percent. And you get excuses like, (paraphrasing) "Kerry was part of the nuclear freeze movement in the early 80s, so even fully acknowleding the train wreck that the Bush administration had been, Kerry was less qualified for the office in 2004".

The 15 years stuff is pretty good, too. The whole point is that in 15 years things may be better or worse. And either way it could be because of or in spite of our actions in Iraq. But what we know is that we caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers and cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars. On top of that most intelligent analysts are looking at the situation and thinking that anything good that develops in the middle east in the next 5-15 years will probably be in spite of our actions in Iraq.

At the end of the day Will has made one thing extremely clear: he must really hate democrats. The sentiment is so strong, it makes me really wonder what the psychological motivation really is.

Posted by mpowell | September 5, 2007 7:36 PM

Here's the opening paragraph to the Paul Krugman column (July 16, 2002) Will Allen takes issue with:

Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given that his aides tout his ''character,'' the public deserves to know that he became wealthy entirely through patronage and connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow many characteristics of his administration, such as its obsession with secrecy and its intermingling of public policy with private interest.

So that's why George W. Bush's Rangers deal wasn't used as "the hook" in an argument against government subsidized projects for MLB teams. Because that wasn't the point of the column! A worthwhile issue, sure, (even though I respect the Green Bay Packer ownership model), but the opening paragraph lays out what he's going to talk about.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:37 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies

Specific claims? My god, tell us--are you for it or against it? Eager humanitarians wish to know.

Posted by Thomas | September 5, 2007 7:39 PM

By the way, I've noticed something about Republicans: they like to say "well, if Bill Clinton did it, we can to" or some variation thereof ("sure we're doing A, but Bill Clinton did B, so it's alright" or "why is A wrong if the New York Times does B?" etc.) I really don't think that, in years to come, Democrats will be saying "well, if George W Bush did A it's alright for us to do B". Does anyone else?

I just googled "George Bush Texas Rangers" and read a few articles. If anyone thinks this episode reflects more poorly on Krugman than on Bush, they are the hack, not Krugman.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:41 PM

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

How utterly disingenuous. If the Iraq War had really turned out to be everything Bush and his backers had promised it would be, would you be telling us we have to wait 15 years to judge the real outcome? Obviously not.

But since this war has proven to be the exact opposite of everything Bush promised it would be, everyone who points out the obvious is told we have to wait 10, 15, 50 or even 100 years before we can judge the "real" consequences of this disaster.

That's a heck of a lot of Friedmans.

Posted by chuck | September 5, 2007 7:41 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies.

What you said was, it might be better for America to commit torture itself than to ask other countries to do it for us because when home-grown US citizens do it there is "accountability".

I don't see how that is. In theory I wouldn't expect someone who tortures people to be honest about it, and in practice that is exactly what we have found. The Bush administration did not want the Abu Ghraib photos released, did everything they could to confine investigations into same to the grunts in the prison rather than their superiors, etc. How is accountability possible in such situations?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:45 PM

Will, I wasn't commenting on your stance on Bush torture. I was commenting on the inevitable reference to Clinton that happens with every blog argument about Bush.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:47 PM

This comment by PJ is right on about Krugman:

As for Krugman, the most important thing about Krugman is that he plays by the conservative pundit rules instead of by the liberal pundit rules. Under the liberal pundit rules, all liberal pundits must write 1 out of 3 columns criticizing democrats to maintain their "credibility." Conservatives love to enforce this rule against liberal pundits, but it's also ingrained within the liberal punditry itself.

As far as I can tell, Krugman is the only liberal pundit who stakes out his positions by arguments. Dionne and others rarely take positions--they explain strategy and other crap like that. But the right side is full of vicious types--Krauthammer, Will, Brooks, now Gerson, and much much more. Compare Krugman to them and he comes out way better.

Posted by jcasey | September 5, 2007 7:47 PM

>>Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years

Hey, that's what I said about Vietnam in the late 70's. Look at the Tonkin Gulf in the mid-90s. Vietnam averaged 8% GDP growth throughout most of the 90s. Hmm, seems to undercut the "cut and run from Nam was such a disaster, we can't do that in Iraq" argument -- as long as we are fantasizing 15 years into the future.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 7:50 PM

So, Will, unlike W, you haven't been able to parlay your insider connections into the personal wealth that will enable you to represent yourself as a successful (therefore better than the rest of us) businessman?

Well, hell, if you're so smart, why ain't ya rich? I'm sure your mom would like you to move out of the basement so she can store her Beanie Baby collection.

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 7:52 PM

Well, mpowell, you are wrong. I have voted for Democrats. Not a lot, but some. I won't vote for a Democrat, however, who thought challenging the Soviet Empire in Central Europe in the early '80s was a mistake.

PAT, please read what I wrote. I said contracting out torture to foreign powers was no better than doing it yourself, and that a case might be made that doing it yourself was wrong, but preferable, due to a chance of greater accountability.

Thomas, please learn to read.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:56 PM

Remember back in the 80s when Cheney and Rumsfeld helped to make sure Saddam was well armed?

And yet you voted for a guy who surrounded, nay, cocooned himself with the very same people who helped to create this monster.

Maybe it's just me, Will, but I don't think I really trust your long-term judgement.

Posted by john | September 5, 2007 7:57 PM

Yes, ignoreland, the usual empty ad hominem invective arrives right on schedule. Congratulations.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:58 PM

Chuck, you apparently live in a universe in which the following logic applies:

Person A advocates action x.
Action x does not have the outcome A predicts.
x therefore produced a worse outcome than non-x would have.

That is not the logic that applies in the world the rest of us occupy, unfortunately.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 8:04 PM

Well, if you don't like it, you can carry yourself over to freeperville and see how long they put up with your bovine excrement. And, btw, telling other people they have "limited imaginations", calling them "fatuous" and "morons", telling them to "learn to read" is employing empty ad hominem invective. So don't complain when you're hit with the pie you started throwing.

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 8:10 PM

Well, John, if given a choice between someone who advocated that the Soviet Empire not be challenged in Central Europe, and someone who advocated that a thug regime be aided in it's conflict with the Iranian thug regime, I'll go with the latter.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 8:14 PM

Well, tell me ignoreland; when a person asks whether they can physically assault me, or whether I think "dumb actions should have no consequences", am I to interpret those remarks as invitations to polite discourse? When I plainly write that torture is unacceptable, and someone responds by asking sarcastically what my position on torture is, is not a request that the person endeavor to read reasonable?

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 8:23 PM

The syllogism you attempt to lay at Chuck's door does not in any way reflect what he said. Instead, it is closer to your overly simplistic way of thinking (see 'doctinaire libertarian' for additional examples).

What we suggest is that if
Person A advocates action x with the outcome y sub1;
Action x not only does not have the outcome y sub1, it yields the inverse of y sub1, with resultant consequences expressed as {a...∞};
x therefore produced a worse outcome than non-x would have

Now, we can go back to the historical record and find dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of the Bush administration predicting positive outcomes; indeed, all we have to do is look at today's paper. We can also go back and discover the negative outcomes that have already been produced; again, look at today's newspaper. Based on that experience, which was predicted in depth and detail by those who opposed the war we can categorically state that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been, is, and will continue to be - far longer than your ridiculous 15 year deadline - a complete and utter disaster. And you not only supported it, you must take responsibility for it.

Don't forget to wash the blood off your hands before you jerk off.

and wtf is blobby? Doctrinaire libertarian toe-tapping?

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 8:29 PM

Well, John, if given a choice between someone who advocated that the Soviet Empire not be challenged in Central Europe, and someone who advocated that a thug regime be aided in it's conflict with the Iranian thug regime, I'll go with the latter.

I think I have identified the problem here: you live in a fantasy world where some American President really did challenge the Soviet Empire in Central Europe other than rhetorically. Who the hell are you talking about? Please, please don't say Reagan and bring up the Pershing IIs. That would just be pathetic.

Posted by k | September 5, 2007 8:31 PM

ignoreland said:

And you not only supported it, you must take responsibility for it.

My question: If someone voted for Bush twice, what does taking responsibility for it entail?

Posted by Tom | September 5, 2007 8:40 PM

Ignoreland, anybody who claims that they can categorically assert anything with regard to what situation will exist in the Persian Gulf in 15 years, to say nothing of beyond that, and thus can categorically assert today whether the removal of the Baathists from Iraq was a good thing or bad thing, is a complete and utter fool, every bit as much as those in the Bush Administration who made categorical assertions as to what the future would bring.

What is with your fascination with onanism, or tea room encounters?

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 8:41 PM

Yes, k, the policies advocated by Reagan and Kerry in Central Europe were viewed as being identical by the Soviet Empire.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 8:44 PM

Man, Will Allen is loaded with Friedman Units! Are you sure 15 years is long enough? If the Middle East is quieter in 15 years, can we bring the troops home then? Do you always wait 15 years to see if just maybe something positive might happen that justifies all of the unnecessary chaos and loss of life currently happening? What kind of pony are you expecting?
The thing couldn't have been "won" to begin with. That's what we'll all figure out, sooner or later.
I'm off to watch Dexter. I'll write you in 15 years once I know whether or not it was any good.

Posted by Cody | September 5, 2007 8:55 PM

you know, i dont know whether we can judge yet whether napoleon's decision to invade russia was a mistake. after all, it's only been around 200 years, and we have to take the long view. since we don't know, it's at least 50-50 that it was a brilliant military decision.

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:00 PM

pretzel, when the American military has retreated in utter crushing defeat, with the Baathists triumphing over it, then your analogy will contain something worth considering.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 9:03 PM

i well remember how reagan dressed up like rambo and parachuted into the middle of east germany, and how the soviet empire subsequently collapsed.

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:03 PM

Will Allen,

The potential stability of the Persian Gulf way down the line can in no way salvage the policies and actions of George Bush.

Let me put it this way:

If you spent $1 million fixing up a $20,000 car, the fact it eventually runs is not the issue, its that you spent $1 million on a $20,000 car.

Posted by Nathan | September 5, 2007 9:07 PM

really? i was just pointing out that it is possible to judge mistakes without waiting for an eternity to pass. at least, it is possible for most of us, that don't have a vested interest in supporting bush's catastrophic decision to invade iraq.

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:09 PM

Lets try it another way:

Sure, I decided to pour all these pollutants into the lake, but if, in 15 years, there are some fish again in the lake, then I was proved f'ing right!!

Posted by Nathan | September 5, 2007 9:10 PM

in fact, nathan, 1n 15 years, the fish may be throwing flowers!

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:14 PM

Personally, I think we should that the subprime lending community collapsing is WONDERFUL for the economy. Check back with me in 15 years, and we'll see if I'm right.

Posted by LnGrrrR | September 5, 2007 9:16 PM

Note: I obviously speak Engrish, as shown by the post above.

PS. BUT, if in 15 years, Engrish is an official language, who'll be the smart guy then huh? THIS GUY!

Posted by LnGrrrR | September 5, 2007 9:17 PM

Nathan, that all depends on what the outcome of not removing the Baathists from power would have been. No one knows that with any certainty, obviously, but one can't say x has been a disaster without first putting forth a theory of what not-x would look like. What I do know is that certain pronouncements of how exceedingly complex competing forces will play out years into the future are quite silly, and I was saying the same thing when nitwits like Kristol were putting them forth.

My support for this invasion was based on my guess of what continued despotism for several decades in an Islamic region from which the world absolutely demands the extraction of oil, in the context of the ever more ubiquitous access to massively destructive technology, would mean. I am not surprised at all at what this war has wrought. I supported it because I thought the pursuit of the status quo in the region, or only very slow change, would likely bring something much worse. I haven't seen anything which shows my fears to be unfounded.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 9:30 PM

Yes, k, the policies advocated by Reagan and Kerry in Central Europe were viewed as being identical by the Soviet Empire.

Now I am really confused. Are you saying you voted for Bush because Kerry opposed the Pershing IIs? Or you voted for Reagan because Mondale supported them but Kerry didn't? What exactly are you talking about?

The Pershing IIs did not "challenge the Soviet Empire in Central Europe" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. They were sold at the time as being defensive weapons.

As for supporting Saddam against Iranian thugs, you can argue *maybe* that it was in our interests at the time. But then to argue later that we really need to take Saddam out even though that, in fact, greatly strengthens the same Iranian thugs is a bit confused, I think.

Posted by k | September 5, 2007 9:33 PM

clearly, spending 2 trillion, needlessly sacrificing thousands of american and hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives, stengthening osama bin ladin and helping terrorists recruit--these concrete facts are mere straws in the wind set against the clarity of will allen's guesses.

Posted by pretzel | September 5, 2007 9:42 PM

To summarize, the criticism of Krugman is that his diatribes against Bush were right but he shouldn't have made them because it makes people who supported Bush then but oppose him now feel stupid. Oh, also, because Kerry opposed the Pershing IIs, I guess.

Posted by k | September 5, 2007 9:43 PM

Will Allen's historical analysis is really quite insighthful. I mean, I have a whole new respect for Herbert Hoover's administration from looking at the United States in 1947. And the vibrant Germany of 1959 is a testament to their first-rate leadership 15 years earlier.

Oh, and I'm sure he is just now finishing up his 6,000-word love letter to Jimmy Carter, responsible for the rollback of Communism in Europe and the nascent tech boom in 1995.

Posted by jlw | September 5, 2007 9:46 PM

I used to believe that it was possible to be a Republican and a patriot. I no longer believe that. On the other hand, I've never believed that it's possible to be a Libertarian and a decent human being, because it's not.

Posted by Mike | September 5, 2007 9:59 PM

Will Allen has been fibbing from the beginning about one particular Krugman column (July 16, 2002, NYT).

Contrary to Mr. Allen's fallacious contention, that column "insinuates" no criminality by Mr. Bush whatsoever. Mr. Bush's hypocrisy, conflicts of interest and other ethical shortcomings, yes, those are abundantly evidenced by Mr. Krugman.

But there is no "hint" or "insinuation" of criminality in that column. Mr. Allen's entire argument is based on a strawman.

Posted by Nash | September 5, 2007 10:02 PM

One of the most infuriating and frustrating things for me about US foreign policy at the moment is that in Iraq, we're pretty openly supporting the Shia dominated government against its Sunni rivals. A Shia dominated government that is supported by Iran. Once you step outside of the satrapy of Iraq, the US supports Sunnis against Shia.

The contradiction doesn't seem to phase anyone in the maladminstration, the "serious" foreign policy community, or their stenographers in the media.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 10:05 PM

Will - are you not making a weaselly assertion that things will be better in the ME in 15 years? I can envision all kinds of fresh hell, even without a destabilized Iraq, but I can categorically state that the refugee crisis, the economic abyss, the resentment of occupying forces, and the legacy of Abu Ghraib are still going to be felt in 15 years, even is some messianic figure waves its wand and gets the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish factions singing Kumbaya. Call me a complete and utter fool if you want, but you are a pathetic self-deluded crackpot, so I'll not hold it against you - you're simply incapable of better.

Now, you made the unsupported statement that things under Saddam were worse than they are now, and implied that you had some information not available to the rest of us. Care to share?

And as for the rest, I just assumed that since your arguments were intellectual masturbation that you acquired the wishful thinking habit from your adolescent practices.

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 10:10 PM

Will wrote: "My support for this invasion was based on my guess of what continued despotism for several decades in an Islamic region from which the world absolutely demands the extraction of oil, in the context of the ever more ubiquitous access to massively destructive technology, would mean."

So you supported the destruction of the only SECULAR government in the region that really had the mullahs under control?

By extension, you thus supported the creation of a power vacuum in a Shiite-dominated nation which Iran would naturally come to have significant influence in, if not outright control.

If radical Islam played any role in your concern, then you should have been calling for us to patch things up with Saddam and make him our ally.

Posted by Jon H | September 5, 2007 10:18 PM

No, Nash, you are not accurate.

Oh, yes, k, defensive weapons are never viewed as a challenge. Also, there are no conditions in which not having a Baathist regime in power in Iraq will not serve the worst elements in Iranian society, which after all, is quite monolithic, just like how 1982 is just the same as 2003. Or something. Also, get it right. Some of the diatribes Krugman has had against Bush have been dishonest.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 10:19 PM

Jon H., a secular government in the Persian Gulf will only be strategically meaningful if it is freely chosen by the population.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 10:22 PM

I can just see the Bushite brain trust having a meeting and saying something along the lines of "what we need to solve this sectarian problem in Iraq is a secular Sunni strongman type guy."

Ooops....

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 10:23 PM

Jon H., a secular government in the Persian Gulf will only be strategically meaningful if it is freely chosen by the population.

You mean like the Iranian government the CIA overthrew in 1953?

Any government in a country that sits on Bush Crime Family oil that is freely chosen by its population will be totally unacceptable to the Bush Crime Family, because the damn peasants will actually think that the oil is theirs.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 10:28 PM

ignoreland, you illiterate twit, I made no reference to how things were under Saddam compared to now. I made reference to how a Persian Gulf under wholly despotic Islamic rule for several more decades, as the rest of the world demanded oil extraction from it, would, in my view, result in a worse outcome than what is currently being experienced.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 10:29 PM

Yes, actual patriot, debating the wisdom of actors who are all dead now will be oh so helpful. Thanks for your penetrating insights.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 10:31 PM

Oh, yes, k, defensive weapons are never viewed as a challenge.

Calling the Pershing IIs a challenge to the Soviet Empire in Central Europe is more than a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you were being metaphorical.

Also, there are no conditions in which not having a Baathist regime in power in Iraq will not serve the worst elements in Iranian society, which after all, is quite monolithic, just like how 1982 is just the same as 2003.

As Will Allen likes to say, go back and read what I said. Anyway, having a Bush administration in the US probably serves the worst elements in Iranian society in a similar way. So what? There is little doubt that invading Iraq has accomplished none of the things you claim to be in favor of. Try again.

Also, get it right. Some of the diatribes Krugman has had against Bush have been dishonest.

See previous posts above. The evidence you have presented so far of dishonesty is less than convincing.

Posted by k | September 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Yes, actual patriot, debating the wisdom of actors who are all dead now will be oh so helpful. Thanks for your penetrating insights.

Yeah, history is bunk. Gotcha.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 10:40 PM

Yes, actual patriot, debating the wisdom of actors who are all dead now will be oh so helpful. Thanks for your penetrating insights.

But supporting the invasion of Iraq because Kerry opposed the Pershing IIs is perfectly logical.

Posted by k | September 5, 2007 10:42 PM

Tyro, I think you entirely underestimate how bad the situation was in the Gulf prior to the removal of the Baathist from Iraq.

Wel, i maay bee an illiterate twit, but me can rekognise when sumwun cant remeber hiz own sili argyumintz.

And Will, anyone who can read your dumbass writing and reply in writing is, by definition, not illiterate.

You want a vision of what not-x would have looked like? OK, Saddam would have held power and continued to oppress the Iraqi people by the hundreds, while selling oil to the world and buying equipment from Halliburton. At some point, probably sooner than later, he would have died - naturally or from extreme lead poisoning. A power struggle at the top would ensue, making the life expectancy of the Ba'athist civil and military leadership shorter than average, even in an impoverished Iraq. A strongman, backed by a coalition, would emerge, and the world would recognize him. At that point, he would probably consolidate power by trying to provide the basic standards of living, buying the loyalty of the Iraqi population. The mullahs would still be minor players, and Iran would still be the enemy of the entire country. Unstable, yes, but for the mass of Iraqis outside Baghdad, not intolerable. Even for the Baghdadis, not quite so bad.

In the US, Bush would not have been re-elected as a war president, and would be slowly drinking himself to oblivion on the 'ranch'. You'd be thanking God that Howard Dean was proving such a unifying force in American politics, since Osama bin Laden was captured and tried on his watch.

Now, compare my imaginings (wow, you didn't think I had one!) to the reality on the ground, and tell me which you'd prefer.

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 10:55 PM

*Now* I remember why I stopped reading Kevin Drum.

Posted by Captain Goto | September 5, 2007 10:57 PM

someone who advocated that a thug regime be aided in its conflict with the Iranian thug regime

A conflict initiated, incidentally, by that non-Iranian thug regime. The same mistake, over and over.

Posted by sj | September 5, 2007 10:59 PM

k, your sarcasm would be perfectly understandable if Kerry had opposed the siting of mere Pershings ... but we're talking Pershing IIs. This important detail having been reiterated (through italics!), I'm sure you will now apologize to Will Allen.

P.S., Gotta love Will Allen's Also, get it right. Some of the diatribes Krugman has had against Bush have been dishonest. Because, y'know, if that doesn't convince you I don't know what will. I mean, if Allen really wanted to it's not like he couldn't find some alleged misrepresentation or inaccuracy to harp on. He's barely even phoning his slander in.

Posted by Warren Terra | September 5, 2007 11:00 PM

McArdle isn't fit to wipe dog poop off Krugman's shoes.

Posted by strait woman | September 5, 2007 11:17 PM

Will Allen conveniently forgets that the criminal behavior engaged in by George W Bush was INSIDER TRADING.

I say he forgets it, because the case is not a matter of insinuation. It was a fairly clear case of ....

heck, let's ASK WILL ALLEN!!

Will, can you please tell us the reason that Bush was not convicted? How did that case go?

Posted by tubino | September 5, 2007 11:26 PM

Stephen Den Beste and Will Allen have never been spotted together.

Posted by theCoach | September 5, 2007 11:28 PM

Warren, I don't think I can link to the column in question, and if I could reproduce it here, I'd be happy to show that you are in fact, slandering me. To magnify Krugman's dishonest ways, he ran a semi-correction of that column not in the forum in which it appeared, the NYT, but rather on his website, with a comparatively tiny readership. He is a hack.

Ignoreland, you illiteracy has caused you to think "situation in the Gulf" is synonymous with "things under Saddam". It is not. Until you actually read the words that are written, there is little point in continuing.

No, k, I didn't write supporting the removal of the Baathists in Iraq was logical because Kerry opposed the deployment of Pershing IIs. I said that Kerry's preferred policy regarding the Soviet Empire was very bad, which caused me to think he would be a poor President.

No, actual patriot, history is not bunk. What is bunk, however, is debating the actions in a situation that has no parallel today. There is no truly democratically elected government in the Gulf that anyone in the U.S. is in danger of supporting a coup against, which makes it quite puzzling that you would raise the issue.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 11:34 PM

Please stop indulging this "Will Allen" sock puppet. There seems to be a real Will Allen with a presence in the blogosphere:

http://www.aidworkers.net/?q=blog/1010

Unlikely to be the same, but unless he fesses up, don't taint the messenger or the message.

Others will probably did deeper, but continuing to engage the "Will Allen" idiot is only giving the RNC borg the hits. Ignore it.

Posted by PaminBB | September 5, 2007 11:49 PM

Oh, Will, come on.

Democratically elected governments in the Middle East have nasty habits of doing precisely what our government does not want them to: Consider the oil under their territory to be their property, and tell western oil concerns to get the hell out of their country.

Historical example: Iran, 1953...endangering the control of Iranian oil by making noises that it might just belong to the Iranian people.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 11:50 PM

Will, you have a remarkable set of arguments going on. On the one hand you blame Kerry for pursuing a policy that did not happen and therefore has had no measurable results, only speculative ones. On the other you back Bush for a policy we're not supposed to judge him for for 15 years. One of those two guys is responsible for a conflagration that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and that's the one you prefer.

Your calculus is a little out.

There is no truly democratically elected government in the Gulf that anyone in the U.S. is in danger of supporting a coup against, which makes it quite puzzling that you would raise the issue.

Iran, although I gather you'll use the "truly" caveat.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 5, 2007 11:55 PM

Warren, I don't think I can link to the column in question, and if I could reproduce it here, I'd be happy to show that you are in fact, slandering me. To magnify Krugman's dishonest ways, he ran a semi-correction of that column not in the forum in which it appeared, the NYT, but rather on his website, with a comparatively tiny readership. He is a hack.

Ignoreland, you illiteracy has caused you to think "situation in the Gulf" is synonymous with "things under Saddam". It is not. Until you actually read the words that are written, there is little point in continuing.

No, k, I didn't write supporting the removal of the Baathists in Iraq was logical because Kerry opposed the deployment of Pershing IIs. I said that Kerry's preferred policy regarding the Soviet Empire was very bad, which caused me to think he would be a poor President.

No, actual patriot, history is not bunk. What is bunk, however, is debating the actions in a situation that has no parallel today. There is no truly democratically elected government in the Gulf that anyone in the U.S. is in danger of supporting a coup against, which makes it quite puzzling that you would raise the issue.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:08 AM

Well, yes, bubba, to claim that Iran's government is the result of a free choice of the Iranian people would be dishonest, thus it is an assertion best left unmade.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:20 AM

What the heck, I'll give it another shot then.

There is no truly democratically elected government in the Gulf that anyone in the U.S. is in danger of supporting a coup against, which makes it quite puzzling that you would raise the issue.

How about Iraq?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 12:31 AM

What's most interesting of all in this set of comments is that the primary contributor--Will Allen--has failed to defend a single point from "just trust me, 15 years" to "Krugman's an evil liar" to "Kerry wanted the USSR to beat the USA." If he's going to ignore all rational debate, why bother responding to him?

He's bought and paid for by the RNC, "I've voted for Democrats many a time" notwithstanding.

Posted by Zephyrus | September 6, 2007 12:37 AM

Actually, Zephyrus, I've written none of the assertions you attributed to me. Are you dishonest, or merely insane?

Well, bubba, if anyone in the U.S. government is planning a coup against the elected government of Iraq, that would be a very bad idea.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:44 AM

Well, bubba, if anyone in the U.S. government is planning a coup against the elected government of Iraq, that would be a very bad idea.

I would read newspapers very carefully in the coming weeks. It's not like the terrible government of the US has been short of bad ideas over the past six years.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 12:55 AM

Hey, anything's possible. If the U.S. supports a coup against the elected Iraqi government, I'll certainnly denounce it, for all the good that will do. Please let me know if you have any substantive reason to think that this is being planned.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 1:02 AM

Will Allen,

Again, no matter how implausibly rosy the situation in the Persian Gulf could be in 15 years, it has no bearing on a judgment as to the catastrophic decisionmaking of the past 5 years by the Bush adminstration.

Any such result could have been achieved far more cheaply, making the Bush administration's actions a failure. More cheaply, aka, for far less expenditure in resorces, lives, credibility and opportunity cost (OBL? Afghanistan?)

Not to mention, achieved without the corresponding gains accrued to our enemies by our foolhardy invasion (recruiting, raison d'tre, expertise).

Again, it doesn't matter that the car runs when you spent $1 million to achieve that result -- the operation is a failure.

(Here, of course, that $1 million was spent to smash up the hood, break the engine and explode the tires.)

Posted by Nathan | September 6, 2007 1:02 AM

ignoreland, you illiterate twit, I made no reference to how things were under Saddam compared to now. I made reference to how a Persian Gulf under wholly despotic Islamic rule for several more decades, as the rest of the world demanded oil extraction from it, would, in my view, result in a worse outcome than what is currently being experienced.

Making up an imaginary situation where your arguments make more sense is what is commonly known as a straw man. Congratulations on your victory, he's clearly bleeding sawdust.

Posted by Redshift | September 6, 2007 1:14 AM

Ah, Will, but the historical record is very, very clear that when middle eastern countries (with the exception of Israel) have democratically elected governments, particularly if they happen to sit on oil, the US will not tolerate the people of that country taking actions perceived to be against the financial interest of US corporations. Case in point: Iran, 1953.

BTW, the current Iranian regime was installed by a popular revolution and has elections that are at least as free as those conducted in say Florida or Ohio. Your attitude towards Iran is a shining example of how any regime that dares, dares to oppose the will of the sole superpower is treated, whether its people have a voice in the country's politics or not.

If the US policy was REALLY about establishing democracy in the Middle East, and about going after the enablers of Osama bin Laden, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 6, 2007 2:00 AM

Hey, anything's possible.

Thus far this seems like the rationale for both your support and condemnation of anything. So, uh, sure!

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 2:02 AM

Will Allen: "Ignoreland, you illiteracy..."

Perfect!

Posted by Carnacki | September 6, 2007 2:05 AM

Nathan, by your logic, the end of Baath Party rule in Iraq has no plausible impact on what the Gulf looks like in 15 years, compared to Baath party rule remaining in place. In other words, it makes no difference at all as to who rules Iraq for the next fifteen years, in regards to how the entire situation in the Persian Gulf will be viewed. The analogy of the car is hopelessly inapt, given that a car can be very closely defined. A complex region of the world cannot be. Thus you imagine that whatever the Gulf looks like in 15 years would have been accomplished absent the removal of the Baath Party.

Yes, Redshift, a Persian Gulf under despotic rule for several more decades is "wholly imaginary". Sure.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 2:09 AM

Actaul Patriot, your knowledge regarding whom is allowed to appear on a ballot in Iran is, well, somewhat interesting. Your contention that a single data point constitutes a trend is silly, but not nearly so much as the cavalier suggestion that invading the regime which rules Mecca would have been the most serious way in which to promote democracy in the Persian Gulf. Sheesh.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 2:17 AM

cavalier suggestion that invading the regime which rules Mecca

Wasn't the invasion of Iraq a cavalier war crime?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 2:24 AM

I'm sure you think so, bubba.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 2:31 AM

I have to say that I found McMegan's attacks on Paul Krugman to be pretty weak

this is kind of like saying "I ate my breakfast this morning".

Posted by dsquared | September 6, 2007 2:47 AM

oh god it gets worse ...

About the quality of JKG's ideas . . . well, we'll leave that for another post

I devoutly hope that this threat is never carried out.

Posted by dsquared | September 6, 2007 2:49 AM

I'm sure you think so, bubba.

Your use of the word "cavalier" was remarkable given its long association with the president. The war crimes bit I lifted from the Nuremburg Principles, but heck, the winner usually gets off, right?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 2:50 AM

163 posts responding to this nitwit Allen.

Glad I stayed out of this one...

Oh, wait...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 3:12 AM

Given that the invasion of Iraq was the first time a major power launched a war of aggression since 1939, I'd say that "cavalier" is not a bad word to describe that.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 6, 2007 3:14 AM

For once, and only once, in a very, very long time, this very old-fashioned, mild-mannered, Catholic, political centrist will break a strict lurking-only policy to say the following.

Good grief, Will Allen is dumb.

Posted by long-term lurker | September 6, 2007 3:28 AM

Will,
You keep typing about the removal of the Baathist from Iraq as though this is a good thing and is the basis for your hesitancy in deriding Bush's international policies.

Two points:
Based upon recent news reports and opinion polls, the US is looked upon rather poorly in most of the known world, primarily because of Bush's policies. When evaluating his foreign policy prowess, please consider what a disaster Bush’s policies have been for our relations with the rest of the world. Could someone else have done worse? That is an unknown. I, and many others, seem to think that doing worse would require a special person with a great deal of talent.

Second, while the Baath party no longer exists, I am more sanguine about the prospects of its members to continue to govern. Supporting them and giving them power appears to be the administrations new plan for peace in Iraq and is how the “Anbar success” has been accomplished.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hb9TNnpwtpIMw9Zogy0x-qy_v_6w

Posted by Quaker | September 6, 2007 4:17 AM

Oh, and I forgot,
I like pie!

Posted by Quaker | September 6, 2007 4:20 AM

"Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation."

Notice that last part? This illustrates the sheer lack of intellectual depth in Mr Allen's thought processes; He even acknowledges HIMSELF that correlation isn't causation. So he also acknowledges that in 15 years, even if things ARE better, that will probably have nothing causally to do with Bush's actions today... Instead people will just likely forget what is now history, as they always do.

Then however, he goes on to spend hour after hour having the same argument repeated back to him in many different ways, sometimes historical and sometimes hyperbolic; and yet he then proceeds to try and quibble and dissassemble as if it's NOT the same point again, simply because he can't recognise it coming from anyone else.

So yes, Kerry can't be trusted because an idea he had which never had any practical expression MIGHT have led to disaster if it had; but you can't judge Bush on a decision he DID make NOW which DID lead to disaster because in 15 years, IF things are good, people will naturally be more forgetful of history, and thus won't remind those who felt fear now what a bad mistake it was to give in to it so often; which makes it ok, even if Bush himself has absolutely nothing to do with either result.

And then he wonders why people are acting with absolute increduality and disrespect to his arguments. It's astounding, it really is... so much so that even people like myself, just passing by here from Atrios, have stop and make a post pointing this out.

Do you really not see how cognitively dissonant you are being, Mr Allen? Indeed, why sugar coat my response; To outside observers like myself, it appears you don't give a damn about anything except justifying your own internal feelings and wishes... to the point at which you'll completely ignore unfolding disaster and suffering right now, or even the arguments YOU YOURSELF just made, in order appeal to 15 years hence when the issues probably won't be as pressing (we hope) just because it justifies NOW your fear of Saddam Hussein. Even though there wasn't even the slightest reason to fear him, which is itself a fact obvious right now too.

And that year 2020? That was a joke about 20-20 hindsight vision on the Daily Show a few weeks back, in fact. That you even chose that date youself as the point at which we should look at Iraq again shows just what an ASTOUNDING lack of awareness of the external world you have. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to get uncomfortable with what sounds increasingly like sociopathy; a complete break with any sort of connection with outside influences at all. Just a constant, shifting, self-justifying appeal to whatever your own inner voices want to be true.

And who could possibly respect someone like that? By now, you should have your answer in copious amounts. But you STILL try to describe objective reality as something different than what it is... terrifying, it truly is.

Posted by Good Grief | September 6, 2007 5:57 AM

Why are you arguing with Will? It's pretty obvious at this point that he's arguing dishonestly, and that he's clearly a bushie. Being that he's Bushie now, in 2007, one can only assume that he is both an extremist and insane.

McArdle? She's just a stuck up elitist who is terrified that someone might take her keys to the promised land away. She's part of a certain elite, and they've spent a great deal of trouble manufacturing a society where only their children have a real future, and they are scared shitless right now that their own mismanagement might screw them out of screwing the rest of us.

Posted by soullite | September 6, 2007 7:46 AM

Iraq in fifteen years will be what presidents subsiquent to Bush make it. If it fails dismally, i.e., looks like it does today, Bush apoligists like that amoral cunt Will Allen will blame any [Democratic] president OTHER than Bush. If Iraq succeeds (and, really, nobody has defined "success," at least not in a substantive, quantifiable manner), then, no matter what decisive action presidents Kucinich or Paul has taken, The Will Allens of the world will prostrate themselves before the flight-suit moment statue outside the doorstep of the Bush library.

Posted by Jamey | September 6, 2007 9:14 AM

Will: We went into Iraq to clean up the Persian Gulf?

I thought it was to prevent Saddam from giving his BFF, Osama bin Laden, WMD.

Posted by Jamey | September 6, 2007 9:20 AM

Apparently, good grief, you have made the logical leap from noting that correlation does not prove causation, to correlation proves no causation. I really don't care for the respect of someone with your cognitive abilities.

Along the same lines, I never experessed any fear of Saddam Hussein. What is it about interpreting the common meaning of words that you find so challenging; to the point that you instead create thoughts purely out of the synapses within your skull, and then attribute them to others?

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 9:36 AM

Jamey, I don't know why the Bush Administration chose the course it did; they put forth a lot of different reasons, and I can't read their minds. I've been critical of them from the beginning regarding their public advocacy, especially with regard to those who made confident predictions of what the future held. Wars are always disastrous, and no one should ever say otherwise. That's not the same thing as asserting that the failure to wage a war will always be less disastrous. The question of which course of action produces the least awful result frequently revolves around what time frame is examined.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 9:51 AM

Yes, quaker, and a lot of former Nazi Party members ended up in positions of power in the West German government. They no longer behaved as badly as they once did.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 9:57 AM

Krugman = Coulter. The people on the right fawning over Coulter have direct equivalents on the left fawning all over Krugman. (And, yes, if you think Krugman is a great columnist, please be assured that there is a Freeper equivalent of you.)
Of course, given our media's left-wing bias, Posted by Al | September 5, 2007 5:49 PM

This type of comment encaspulates the problem the United States and hence the World faces. A significant chunk of the American population is nutzo, 27% of the voting public to be exact (33 million people). They can not distinguish authentic from inauthentic, qualified from unqualified, true from false, opinion from fact. They are the Als of America and they are dragging the USA into the depths. It's a problem. Like Pakistani madrassas are a problem to world peace, so the Als of America are a problem to world stability.

Maybe an international coalition of armed forces should invade the US and clean up this mess, you know pre emptively before it goes too far. LOL Or should we give the "moderate Americans" more time to deal with this problem?

Posted by Northern Observer | September 6, 2007 10:06 AM

Wars are always disastrous, and no one should ever say otherwise. That's not the same thing as asserting that the failure to wage a war will always be less disastrous.

Hey, anything can happen.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 10:11 AM

Wow, Will's first post was yesterday at 4:30 pm and this last one was at 9:51 am. A seventeen and a half hour marathon! Good job, man!

You could've backed off that fifteen years in the future argument-- one I laughed about last night (with friends and away from the computer!). Just said "You know, that's not that defensible. My bad." But you argued about it 4 EVAR! You could've said "truly truly truly TRULY democratically elected government" to cover your bottom, but you just assert Iran's just not.

You're my new favorite troll.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 6, 2007 10:25 AM

Yeah, Jeapordude, pointing out that Iran's government does not truly rule by consent, given that the population's choices are severely constrained by the despotic elite, is just so, gosh, radical.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 10:30 AM

It's a paid troll service, this Will Allen. Less than minimum wage I am sure. To get better arguments you have to pay them better.

Posted by horatius | September 6, 2007 10:36 AM

It's a paid troll service, this Will Allen. Less than minimum wage I am sure. To get better arguments you have to pay them better.

I think arguments based on a magical future are a big winner in the troll sweepstakes. I may employ them more often. Was it a good idea to set my car on fire? I may know in 15 years: it is too soon to judge.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 10:45 AM

Glibertarians suck. McMegan is a fascist who supports torture (can't say that on her blog), and Will Allen denies the ability to assess the consequences of actions without nineteen years of hindsight (the four since the invasion and then an extra fifteen for good measure). He is also pretty much a monster, as he is ignoring all of the currently-viewable consequences (hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, civil war looming, America hated around the world, etc.) because they may be magically justified somehow someway in the future. How many dead Iraqis before we can call the invasion of Iraq a mistake, or do they not count for anything?

Posted by Luke | September 6, 2007 10:54 AM

Yeah, bubba, setting a car on fire is similar in complexity to waging a war, thus making for an oustanding analogy.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 11:05 AM

Was it a good idea to set my car on fire? I may know in 15 years: it is too soon to judge.

Forgot to compensate for the potentially disastrous consequences of not setting my car on fire!

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 11:14 AM

Now, if someone wished to put forth an analogy which had some value, instead of jabbering pointlessly about cars, one might note that a lot of very smart people denounced the U.S. decision to wage war on Mexico when that action was taken, and continued to do so decades later. Now, some 160 years later, one would be hard-pressed to find a lot of folks in San Diego or Albuquerque who would argue that the likely outcome of not waging that war would have been superior.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 11:25 AM

1965: How bad was the decision to escalate the war in Vietnam based on lies about an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin?
Tell me what Vietnam looks like in 30 years, and I'll make my judgment.
LBJ made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if Vietnam improves markedly in the next 30 years.

1975: How bad was the decision to leave Vietnam, pretending that the South Vietnamese army was ready to take over for U.S. forces?
Tell me what Vietnam looks like in 20 years, and I'll make my judgment.
Nixon made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if Vietnam improves markedly in the next 20 years.

2007: How bad was the decision of the Bush administration to pretend for years that there was no scientific consensus on the existence of global warming caused, at least in part, by human activities?
Tell me what earth looks like next week, and I'll make my judgment. Tell me what earth looks like in fifty years and I'll make another judgment. Tell me what earth looks like in a hundred years and I'll make still another judgment. Tell me what earth looks like in 4 billion years (hint: not very solid) and I'll have to answer: "What's the point of making decisions, or voting for anybody? We'll all be dead in 4 billion years!"

"The question of which course of action produces the least awful result frequently revolves around what time frame is examined."

Words to live by.

Posted by cowalker | September 6, 2007 11:30 AM

Now, if someone wished to put forth an analogy which had some value, instead of jabbering pointlessly about cars, one might note that a lot of very smart people denounced the U.S. decision to wage war on Mexico when that action was taken, and continued to do so decades later. Now, some 160 years later, one would be hard-pressed to find a lot of folks in San Diego or Albuquerque who would argue that the likely outcome of not waging that war would have been superior.

You have a complete collection of What If comics, right?

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 11:33 AM

I can't believe this troll has 17 hours of time to waste on once comment thread. We are truly in a recession.

Posted by horatius | September 6, 2007 11:36 AM

The name calling used against Will is a bit unnecessary, however I will add his "Clinton did it too" argument is pretty much complete crap. Yes the Clinton administration did practice a form of rendition, but it was completely different than Bush's. The Bush administration is handing suspects over to be tortured. Clinton was handing them over, with FAR more oversight than Bush, to be prosecuted. There is a vast difference between the two. So as lame as the "Clinton did it too" argument is, it really doesn't even apply here.

Posted by bt | September 6, 2007 11:39 AM

The name calling used against Will is a bit unnecessary

Oh I disagree. The Mexican war analogy is an argument for war NOW against Mexico. Or Myanmar or Sierra Leone. It's a sociopath's view of foreign affairs.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 11:43 AM

Oh, yes, bt, none of the people the Clinton Administration turned over were tortured, and if they were it came as a complete surprise. Yep.

Yes, bubba, I'm advocating that we invade Mexico again. Right.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 11:53 AM

Yes, bubba, I'm advocating that we invade Mexico again. Right.

They'd be better off in about 160 years, and the consequence of the war not fought could be awful.

Look, it's good fun to follow your logic. You should try it.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 11:57 AM

Solid A on the snark-o-meter Will, but it's a pretty feeble argument. That sometimes people handed over for prosecution may actually have ended up being tortured does NOT put Clinton's policy on par with one that advocates rendition for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of torture. There is a clear delineation in intent. So the comparison is useless, even if some subsection of one group suffered the same fate as EVERYONE in the other group.

Posted by bt | September 6, 2007 12:00 PM

". . . one would be hard-pressed to find a lot of folks in San Diego or Albuquerque who would argue that the likely outcome of not waging that war [against Mexico] would have been superior."

Perhaps, but what about people living within the current boundaries of Mexico? Or are we restricted to considering only the American perspective on what is "superior?"

One could argue that, had we not forcibly taken territory from them, we MIGHT have had fewer problems with illegal immigration because Mexico's economy would have been better. And mightn't we better off without Hollywood?

As long as we're fantasizing about possible historical outcomes, maybe we would have been better off without the American Revolution. Eventually Great Britain would have cut us loose, as they did Canada. Probably they would have forced us to criminalize slavery much earlier, and we might have avoided the Civil War.

"The question of which course of action produces the least awful result frequently revolves around what time frame is examined."--Will Allen

Posted by cowalker | September 6, 2007 12:02 PM

No, I don't know that they would be better off in 160 years, and there is extremely little similarity between Mexico today and and the Persian Gulf, so I see no likely potential catastrophe looming in Mexico today that in any way approximates the situation in the Persian Gulf. You couldn't follow logic with a tracking device.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:06 PM

You couldn't follow logic with a tracking device.

Willy will will will! YOU brought up the wonderful consequences of the Mexican war: no Persian gulf necessary.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 12:14 PM

"... I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey, ..."

You are completely crazy, man. Chopping off America's nose to spite your face. Thanks a lot.

Posted by nemo | September 6, 2007 12:15 PM

Yes, cowalker, when considering what would have been best for the people within a geographical area, it is better to limit oneself to those people. Now, as it happens, millions of Mexicans would be horrified if California were to revert to Mexican rule. I don't consider illegal immigration to be much of a problem.

Yes, it is a shame that Great Britain's behavior towards it's American colonies formented a revolution, although I'd note that the institution of slavery was quite likely to lead to some sort of war eventually. A smart British government, however, could have eventually used slavery as a means of dividing the northern colonies from the southern colonies.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:18 PM

McMegan deletes all comments that call her a fascist - even when she writes columns in defense of torture (which in my book, makes her a fascist).

Posted by fasteddie | September 5, 2007 5:00 PM

This is behavior you would expect from a fascist like McMegan. She is both a blogofascist and a real fascist. She is the John Yoo of the blogosphere.

Posted by googlenope | September 6, 2007 12:21 PM

Yes, Bubba, I brought up the eventual consequences of a war waged on Mexico in the mid 19th century, as an example of how long it can take to evaluate the consequences of waging a war. That doesn't speak specifically to the prospect of waging war on Mexico in the early 21st century. Why must this be explained to you?

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:24 PM

Yes, Bubba, I brought up the eventual consequences of a war waged on Mexico in the mid 19th century, as an example of how long it can take to evaluate the consequences of waging a war. That doesn't speak specifically to the prospect of waging war on Mexico in the early 21st century. Why must this be explained to you?

It doesn't need to be explained: you do not understand the arguments you're making, which is part of the fun of this conversation.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 12:32 PM

Bubba, a person who claims that an observation, which states that the consequences of the Mexican American War took a very long time to fully evaluate, is the equivalent of advocating another invasion of Mexico, has no business making comments about others' cognitive ability.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:57 PM

Here is the Krugman column that, according to Will Allen, alleged criminal activity in Bush's business dealings:

Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given that his aides tout his "character," the public deserves to know that he became wealthy entirely through patronage and connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow many characteristics of his administration, such as its obsession with secrecy and its intermingling of public policy with private interest.

As the unanswered questions about Harken Energy pile up — what's in those documents the White House won't release? Who was the mystery buyer of Mr. Bush's stock? — let me now turn to how Mr. Bush, who got by with a lot of help from his friends in the 1980's, became wealthy in the 1990's. He invested $606,000 as part of a syndicate that bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 — borrowing the money and repaying the loan with the proceeds from his Harken stock sale — then saw that grow to $14.9 million over the next nine years. What made his investment so successful?

First, the city of Arlington built the Rangers a new stadium, on terms extraordinarily favorable to Mr. Bush's syndicate, eventually subsidizing Mr. Bush and his partners with more than $150 million in taxpayer money. The city was obliged to raise taxes substantially as a result. Soon after the stadium was completed, Mr. Bush ran successfully for governor of Texas on the theme of self-reliance rather than reliance on government.

Mr. Bush's syndicate eventually resold the Rangers, for triple the original price. The price-is-no-object buyer was a deal maker named Tom Hicks. And thereby hangs a tale.

The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a large endowment. As governor, Mr. Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to disclose "all details concerning the investments made and income realized," and to have "a well-recognized performance measurement service" assess investment results. That is, government officials no longer had to tell the public what they were doing with public money, or allow an independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush "privatized" (his term) $9 billion in university assets, transferring them to a nonprofit corporation known as Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed doors.

In effect, the money was put under the control of Utimco's chairman: Tom Hicks. Under his direction, at least $450 million was invested in private funds managed by Mr. Hicks's business associates and major Republican Party donors. The managers of such funds earn big fees. Due to Mr. Bush's change in the rules, these investments were hidden from public view; an employee of Utimco who alerted university auditors was summarily fired. Even now, it's hard to find out how these investments turned out, though they seem to have done quite badly.

Eventually Mr. Hicks's investment style created a public furor, and he did not seek to retain his position at Utimco when his term expired in 1999.

One last item: Mr. Bush, who put up 1.8 percent of the Rangers syndicate's original capital, was entitled to about $2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?

All of this showed Mr. Bush's characteristic style. First there's the penchant for secrecy, for denying the public information about decisions taken in its name. So it's no surprise that the proposed Homeland Security Agency will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and from whistle-blower protection.

Then there's the conversion of institutions traditionally insulated from politics into tools for rewarding your friends and reinforcing your political control. Yesterday the University of Texas endowment; today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; tomorrow those Social Security "personal accounts"?

Finally, there's the indifference to conflicts of interest. In Austin, Governor Bush saw nothing wrong with profiting personally from a deal with Tom Hicks; in Washington, he sees nothing wrong with having the Pentagon sign what look like sweetheart deals with Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton.

So the style of a future Bush administration was easily predictable, given Mr. Bush's career history.

Originally published in The New York Times, 7.16.02

Posted by Gramma Millie | September 6, 2007 1:27 PM

Here's how Will Allen described the column yesterday:

Jeapardude, the column is from 2002 or 2003, and it pertains to Bush's involvement with the Texas Rangers, specifically how Bush received a % of the profits from the sale of the team in excess of his capital contribution, and how this is indicative of criminal activity.
Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:07 PM

Posted by Gramma Millie | September 6, 2007 1:32 PM

Stalin invaded Poland in 1939, and FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, there were no more Nazis in Europe! Clearly, Stalin invading Poland was a good idea, in retrospect. That's why, even acknowledging that his domestic policy was terrible, I would have voted for Stalin. Twice.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge massacred tons of Cambodians, but FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, southeast Asia was practically free of Soviet influence! Clearly the Khmer Rouge wasn't all that bad. I'd have voted for them twice.

Osama bin Laden sent two planes into the World Trade Center, but FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, who knows how strong and beautiful New York is going to be? For all we know, knocking down the Twin Towers will turn out to be a wonderful, exciting, super-amazing event that changes the way the world works. I, for one, will be withholding judgment on the morality of 9-11 for at least another eight years. But in the meantime, I'm going to vote for Osama bin Laden, just in case. (Twice.)

Posted by Mega-Will-Allen | September 6, 2007 1:47 PM

OTOH ... the United States failed to invade Iraq in 1986, and we all know what happened 15 years later.

Posted by Meta-Will-Allen | September 6, 2007 2:11 PM

Will Allen: No, Nash, you are not accurate.

I'd not usually dump a whole column's worth of text into a comment, but it's needed here to show that Allen is a liar.

Here for everyone to see is the Krugman column that Allen has claimed several times "insinuates" criminality by Mr. Bush:

SYNOPSIS: How did Bush get so rich anyway?

Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given that his aides tout his "character," the public deserves to know that he became wealthy entirely through patronage and connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow many characteristics of his administration, such as its obsession with secrecy and its intermingling of public policy with private interest.

As the unanswered questions about Harken Energy pile up — what's in those documents the White House won't release? Who was the mystery buyer of Mr. Bush's stock? — let me now turn to how Mr. Bush, who got by with a lot of help from his friends in the 1980's, became wealthy in the 1990's. He invested $606,000 as part of a syndicate that bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 — borrowing the money and repaying the loan with the proceeds from his Harken stock sale — then saw that grow to $14.9 million over the next nine years. What made his investment so successful?

First, the city of Arlington built the Rangers a new stadium, on terms extraordinarily favorable to Mr. Bush's syndicate, eventually subsidizing Mr. Bush and his partners with more than $150 million in taxpayer money. The city was obliged to raise taxes substantially as a result. Soon after the stadium was completed, Mr. Bush ran successfully for governor of Texas on the theme of self-reliance rather than reliance on government.

Mr. Bush's syndicate eventually resold the Rangers, for triple the original price. The price-is-no-object buyer was a deal maker named Tom Hicks. And thereby hangs a tale.

The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a large endowment. As governor, Mr. Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to disclose "all details concerning the investments made and income realized," and to have "a well-recognized performance measurement service" assess investment results. That is, government officials no longer had to tell the public what they were doing with public money, or allow an independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush "privatized" (his term) $9 billion in university assets, transferring them to a nonprofit corporation known as Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed doors.

In effect, the money was put under the control of Utimco's chairman: Tom Hicks. Under his direction, at least $450 million was invested in private funds managed by Mr. Hicks's business associates and major Republican Party donors. The managers of such funds earn big fees. Due to Mr. Bush's change in the rules, these investments were hidden from public view; an employee of Utimco who alerted university auditors was summarily fired. Even now, it's hard to find out how these investments turned out, though they seem to have done quite badly.

Eventually Mr. Hicks's investment style created a public furor, and he did not seek to retain his position at Utimco when his term expired in 1999.

One last item: Mr. Bush, who put up 1.8 percent of the Rangers syndicate's original capital, was entitled to about $2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?

All of this showed Mr. Bush's characteristic style. First there's the penchant for secrecy, for denying the public information about decisions taken in its name. So it's no surprise that the proposed Homeland Security Agency will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and from whistle-blower protection.

Then there's the conversion of institutions traditionally insulated from politics into tools for rewarding your friends and reinforcing your political control. Yesterday the University of Texas endowment; today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; tomorrow those Social Security "personal accounts"?

Finally, there's the indifference to conflicts of interest. In Austin, Governor Bush saw nothing wrong with profiting personally from a deal with Tom Hicks; in Washington, he sees nothing wrong with having the Pentagon sign what look like sweetheart deals with Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton.

So the style of a future Bush administration was easily predictable, given Mr. Bush's career history.

Originally published in The New York Times, 7.16.02

That's a lack of ethics being pointed out in abundance, Mr. Allen, not criminality.

Posted by Nash | September 6, 2007 3:20 PM

Sorry for the repetition of your point, Gramma. It's good to see that others recognize Mr. Allen's dishonesty here.

Posted by Nash | September 6, 2007 3:22 PM

It's good to see that others recognize Mr. Allen's dishonesty here.

It seems the only one that doesn't is will allen himself. Entertaining.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 3:42 PM

Krugman = Coulter

Yo, Al!

Could you help me out here and list all the people the Krug has demanded to be tortured and/or killed?

Thanks, dude!

Posted by bartcopfan | September 6, 2007 3:46 PM

"Bubba, a person who claims that an observation, which states that the consequences of the Mexican American War took a very long time to fully evaluate, is the equivalent of advocating another invasion of Mexico, has no business making comments about others' cognitive ability."

So, I see you're keeping yourself busy while waiting for someone to decide that shooting you in the head might possibly produce some unknown, positive effect at some unknown point in the future.

I'm not sure anyone has tried penetrating your irrationality in this way, so...if 15 years from now the Middle East is even more fucked up than it was pre-Iraq War and that state of intense crapiness can reasonably be traced back to our invasion of Iraq...what exactly are you going to do then? Assuming no one shoots you in the head before that, what will you do about the hundreds of thousands (or perhaps a couple million) of dead and the nearly 20 years of widespread, massive suffering? Do we drag you and every other war supporter out into a corpse-strewn Baghdad square and sodomize you all with a jackhammer?

Seriously, what if we wait 15 years and it's just a shitty or even shittier? What then?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 6, 2007 3:56 PM

Stop lying, Nash and Gramma. When a person says that a member of partnership, who had a very large role in the partnership receiving dozens and dozens of millions of dollars in subsidies, and who received 15 million in compensation when the enterprise was sold, has instead received a "gift" as a sitting governor from businessmen with interest in government decisions, he is insinuating criminal activities. A 12 million dollar "gift" to sitting governors from businessmen with interests in government decisions is clearly an illegal activity in most jusridictions, even when outright bribery can't be proven. Krugman is clearly insinuating criminality in this remark, which is why he later ran a clarification on his peresonal website, but of course lacked the integrity to do so in the much larger forum in which the original dishonest insinuation ran. Krugman is a total and complete hack, and the manner in which he backtracked from the piece you reproduced just establishes the point even more. Stop defending the indefensible.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 4:04 PM

You can sure try, Mike, which seems about right for you. My view of the Persian Gulf five years ago was that militarily and economically weak people who sit atop natural resources that are absolutely demanded by much more powerful people all over the world, while the weak people exhibit violent hostility, are in for a very,very, bad time, far worse than anything we've yet witnessed.

That's how the world works, and quite likely how it will always work, because powerful people have never in history been willing to endure substantial material deprivation out of respect for the traditons and customs of weak people, and all the fantasizing to the contrary won't change anything. The people of the Persian Gulf will thus either learn to govern themselves, and their natural resources, and choose to trade peacefully and profitably with the rest of the world (make no mistake, it is not just the American citizen/consumer who demands the uninterrupted extraction of Persian Gulf oil into the fungible global supply) or they are in for a far more horrible fate than anything yet witnessed.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 4:18 PM

Then would you bother to tell us which crimes in Texas of Federal law, exactly you think Krugman insinuates instead of a mere speculation about what the laws in "most jurisdictions" say? And would you bother to give us a link to the retraction or "clarification" you claim Krugman has made or at least tell us what, exactly, Krugman has retracted or clarified? Or which of his claims have proven false? As one says in the entertainment business: Show, don't tell.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 4:33 PM

Mr Allen,

You are clearly not a lawyer. I suggest you cease your speculation as to Krugman's "insinuations" as it is dead wrong. He never alleged or insinuated that laws were broken. He pretty clearly set forth that it was an issue of ethics, croneyism, and conflicts of interest.

As to your fantasy 15 year window, it has been pretty well refuted by others and myself.

But, one last time: no matter what effect removing the Baath party could have 15 years down the road, that result could have been achieved in a far better manner. Get it? The decisionmaking has been fatally disastrous, it cannot be rescusitated.

Posted by Nathan | September 6, 2007 4:52 PM

My view of the Persian Gulf five years ago was that militarily and economically weak people who sit atop natural resources that are absolutely demanded by much more powerful people all over the world, while the weak people exhibit violent hostility, are in for a very,very, bad time, far worse than anything we've yet witnessed.

This may mean something in English. Perhaps we will find out some years hence.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 6, 2007 4:57 PM

Here's whatthe Texas AG's office says about public officials accepting gifts...

"Even if an item was not solicited and had no influence over the decision that was made, it may still be considered bribery of a public official or employee. These factors are not listed as defenses to a prosecution for bribery."

To assert that Krugman stated that Bush had received a 12 million dollar gift from businessmen with interests in decisions by state government, but Krugman was not attempting to insinuate criminality, is simply ridiculous. Go look up the clarification that Krugman put up on his website, lacking the integrity to run it in the Times.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 4:58 PM

"Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation."

Notice that last part? This illustrates the sheer lack of intellectual depth in Mr Allen's thought processes; He even acknowledges HIMSELF that correlation isn't causation. So he also acknowledges that in 15 years, even if things ARE better, that will probably have nothing causally to do with Bush's actions today... Instead people will just likely forget what is now history, as they always do.

The war in Vietnam was a splendid idea, then.

Posted by MasonMcD | September 6, 2007 5:06 PM

Well, here's was the Texas penal code says:

§ 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on
another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's
decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of
discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's
decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official
discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;
(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a
duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or
(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as
defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made
and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if
the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed
to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific
exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official
discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the
benefit"

The last sentence is important: There must be an agreement to take or not take a specific action. The quote you make only means that actual causality between the bribe and the action is not neccessery, as long as there is such an agreement. Which means: Accepting gifts which are not proven to be related to a specific action but instead to make the official generally sympathetic to one's interest (which is all Krugman insinuates, as I understand it) is not, in fact, bribery.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 5:21 PM

Here's how Krugman backtracked, in his classless way, from what he dishonestly called a "gift" of 12 million dollars to a sitting governor, from businesspeople with interests in state decisions. If you want to pursue the ridiculous assertion, Patrick, that in order for an insinuation of criminality to exist, the insinuator must make an explicit description of how the penal code was violated, you just go right ahead. Anyways, this is what Krugman said on his blog, reagarding a fairly typical arrangement between a general partner, and the limited partners. Again, Krugman lacked the integrity to run it in the Times.

"'A few people have asked me about that letter from Bush's former business associates, regarding the nature of his deal with the Texas Rangers syndicate. They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board?"

What a hack Krugman is.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 5:40 PM

"You can sure try, Mike, which seems about right for you. My view of the Persian Gulf five years ago was that militarily and economically weak people who sit atop natural resources that are absolutely demanded by much more powerful people all over the world, while the weak people exhibit violent hostility, are in for a very,very, bad time, far worse than anything we've yet witnessed.

That's how the world works, and quite likely how it will always work, because powerful people have never in history been willing to endure substantial material deprivation out of respect for the traditons and customs of weak people, and all the fantasizing to the contrary won't change anything. The people of the Persian Gulf will thus either learn to govern themselves, and their natural resources, and choose to trade peacefully and profitably with the rest of the world (make no mistake, it is not just the American citizen/consumer who demands the uninterrupted extraction of Persian Gulf oil into the fungible global supply) or they are in for a far more horrible fate than anything yet witnessed."

WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT BUSH'S POLICIES IN IRAQ ARE RIGHT OR WRONG? The closest I can figure is you think that because some bad things are probably going to happen in the Middle East, it doesn't matter WHAT those bad things are or who causes them. So, since some bad things will likely happen to you at some undertermined point in the future...you wouldn't care if someone decides to crush your tiny nuts in a vise tomorrow?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 6, 2007 5:55 PM

People, please give Will Allen a well-earned break. He's posted at least 50 comments, many of which are coherent, with only a seven hour break for supper and sleep, and a 3 hour break for lunch and naptime. It's already basically his by sheer dint of quantity, so let's just cede him the thread.

A complete list of Will Allen timestamps is below:
September 5, 2007 4:30 PM
September 5, 2007 5:18 PM
September 5, 2007 5:53 PM
September 5, 2007 6:01 PM
September 5, 2007 6:05 PM
September 5, 2007 6:14 PM
September 5, 2007 6:27 PM
September 5, 2007 6:35 PM
September 5, 2007 6:53 PM
September 5, 2007 7:07 PM
September 5, 2007 7:12 PM
September 5, 2007 7:25 PM
September 5, 2007 7:29 PM
September 5, 2007 7:33 PM
September 5, 2007 7:56 PM
September 5, 2007 7:58 PM
September 5, 2007 8:04 PM
September 5, 2007 8:14 PM
September 5, 2007 8:23 PM
September 5, 2007 8:41 PM
September 5, 2007 8:44 PM
September 5, 2007 9:03 PM
September 5, 2007 9:30 PM
September 5, 2007 10:19 PM
September 5, 2007 10:22 PM
September 5, 2007 10:29 PM
September 5, 2007 10:31 PM
September 5, 2007 11:34 PM
September 6, 2007 12:08 AM
September 6, 2007 12:20 AM
September 6, 2007 12:44 AM
September 6, 2007 1:02 AM
September 6, 2007 2:09 AM
September 6, 2007 2:17 AM
September 6, 2007 2:31 AM
September 6, 2007 9:36 AM
September 6, 2007 9:51 AM
September 6, 2007 9:57 AM
September 6, 2007 10:30 AM
September 6, 2007 11:05 AM
September 6, 2007 11:25 AM
September 6, 2007 11:53 AM
September 6, 2007 12:06 PM
September 6, 2007 12:18 PM
September 6, 2007 12:24 PM
September 6, 2007 12:57 PM
September 6, 2007 4:04 PM
September 6, 2007 4:18 PM
September 6, 2007 4:58 PM
September 6, 2007 5:40 PM

Posted by Warren Terra | September 6, 2007 6:19 PM

Because, Mike, if the perceived likely outcome of doing nothing is extremely bad, then taking large risks in the attempt to avoid that bad outcome is reasonable. Look, you are certain of what the outcome of ending Baathist rule in Iraq will mean, thus you confidently declare that no good will come from having done so in the manner the Bush Administration did. Your certainty is unwarranted, however.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 6:41 PM

Will Allen,

Your logical senses are beyond repair. Apologies if our comments exacerbated this system error, I recommend you have this problem remedied as soon as possible.

Posted by Nathan | September 6, 2007 7:37 PM

Nathan, your logical senses are such that you cannot perceive, after 24 hours, that whether action x, performed very badly, was a preferable course of action, is entirely dependent on what the outcome of not engaging in action x would be.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 8:05 PM

You seem to be unable to grasp my point that a consequence arrived at through costs greater than the benefits is not a positive outcome. Moreover, that action which arguably (and given your 15 year horizon, very tenuously) led to that outcome can be regarded as a failure when other, less costly alternatives could be taken.

However, I will engage you: Please point to evidence suggesting that 2020 status quo Baathist Iraq (contained, weakened, secular despotism standing as a bulwark to Iran) would leave the Middle East in a less preferrable state than what the decisions of the past 5 years look to bring (chaos, mass death, societal breakdown, terrorist breeding, spreading anti-americanism, spreading fundamental islamism, Iranian domination).

If you can't point to anything, then your speculation is baseless, without merit and must be disregarded.

And, again, this doesn't even take into account the opportunity cost of not consolidating Afghanistan and not throwing everything at OBL (aka, our true enemy).

Posted by Nathan | September 6, 2007 8:28 PM

Yes, Nathan, and the benefits are wholly dependent on what the outcome of not x would be. You think you can be certain of the benefits. You can't.

Now, to pick just one way you don't perceive possible benefits, you speak of Iranian domination as a definitively bad thing, without grasping that such an assumption is dependent on what Iran will be like. I don't know, and neither do you, but there is a chance that not having a Baath Party hostile state on Iran's border will weaken the support that the worst elements within Iran can garner from the Iranian population. A hostile enemy on the border usually aids the most repressive elements within a society, after all.

Of course, things could not work out so favorably, and I do worry that careless hostility directed towards Iran might be counterproductive; I'm quite happy that the Bush Administration has only about 15 months left, and really, I would have been tempted to vote against him last time, if my option had not been John Kerry. That's not the same thing, however, as saying that I know that in future years that the removal of Baath Party rule in Iraq, even by Bush's methods, will be seen as disastrous.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 9:04 PM

Oh, good grief, nathan, I just read your last remark. Osama Bin Laden could have keeled over from a stroke on September 12, 2001, and the strategic situation would have barely changed. We screwed up a lot of stuff in Afghanistan, principally by continuing our hostility to opium poppy production, but the fact that OBL is not dead isn't that critical. The Wahabbists would have had refuge in Pakistan no matter if Bin Laden was alive or dead. The only reason Afghanistan matters is that it is next to Pakistan, and the only reason Pakistan matters is that they have a nuclear bomb. Nobody has a good idea of what to do about Pakistan.

The center of gravity in this conflict is the Persian Gulf, because the oil in that area is what drives every government in the world to pay attention to it; their citizens demand that the oil be extracted, period. The only question is how many people get killed in the process.

Unless the people of the Gulf get a handle on self government, and peaceful trade with the rest of the world, then that extraction will take place under hostile conditions, much as it has since the oil reserves were discovered. That was manageable in a world where very destructive technology was the sole province of large stable nation states. That's no longer the case, and it is only a matter of time before non state actors greatly increase their destructive abilities. The only sure way to keep non state actors' capabilities in check is to have populations like those in the Persian Gulf, who are especially worrisome due to a combination of culture, religion, history, and access to oil wealth, have their political destinies within their control.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 9:26 PM

People, please give Will Allen a well-earned break. He's posted at least 50 comments, many of which are coherent, with only a seven hour break for supper and sleep, and a 3 hour break for lunch and naptime. It's already basically his by sheer dint of quantity, so let's just cede him the thread.

I'm not willing to make a judgement on who won the thread yet. Tell me what the thread looks like in 15 years.

Posted by Duane | September 6, 2007 9:36 PM

Was it Krugman or someone else who tried to link Bush to the Enron scandal by mistakenly claiming that the Bush-owned Texas Rangers had played in Enron Field, then, when told the Houston Astros played in Enron Field, misunderstood the nature of the correction and thought that meant Bush owned the Astros? The columnist in question (whether it was Krugman or someone else) did get it right on the third try.

Posted by James Kabala | September 6, 2007 10:33 PM

Terribly sorry to disappoint you, Allen, but you are a liar and a fool. The column, now posted twice, disproves every characterization you made of it.

I'd be quite happy to parse every sentence of it for you, should you need the assistance with your reading comprehension.

Criminal behavior not claimed or insinuated. Unethical behavior in spades. Not the same thing, Allen. Stop lying.

To everyone else, contrast Allen's comments about the column with the text of the column. Quite instructive as to how much of a buffoon and a liar he is.

Posted by Nash | September 6, 2007 11:15 PM

Yeah, sure, Nash, stating that a sitting governor received a "gift" of 12 million from businessmen with interests in government decisions doesn't insinuate anything, because "gifts" commonly take the form of 12 million dollar checks. Are you normally so pathetic? Also, really, why should Krugman be bothered to actually describe the business relationship accurately, and when called upon it, run the clarification in the same large forum, instead of a much smaller one? Why do you defend this hackery?

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 1:52 AM

Krugman's a rock star. As well as being probably the only mainstream columnist who is a truly serious first-tier scholar and thinker. The whole logic, critical thinking, maybe-I-should-have-taken-a-few-philosophy-courses-and-learned-something-about-rational-argumentation thing seems to have passed the vast majority of mainstream columnists by, including the other ostensibly liberal (establishment) ones. There's a reason why Krugman stands out; there's an order of magnitude difference in terms of the quality, concision and directness of analysis. He really bores down at the issue and is also willing to take a stand, as opposed to the pussy-footing and metanarrative horse race garbage you get from other "liberals" like Dionne, etc. Bob Herbert is great, too, but it's apples and oranges (Herbert's more of a human-interest writer). You can't really compare them.

Posted by Warren | September 7, 2007 6:31 AM

Yeah, sure, Nash, stating that a sitting governor received a "gift" of 12 million from businessmen with interests in government decisions doesn't insinuate anything, because "gifts" commonly take the form of 12 million dollar checks.

Your lack of reading skills is biting you in the ass, Allen. Krugman insinuated that Bush had a faulty moral compass and lacked for proper ethics. He did not insinuate criminal activity on Mr. Bush's part.

It's quite simple for anyone other than you to see: You said Krugman wrote something that Krugman did not write.

You lied.

Pathetic behavior is a specialty of yours, it would seem.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 10:01 AM

"Because, Mike, if the perceived likely outcome of doing nothing is extremely bad, then taking large risks in the attempt to avoid that bad outcome is reasonable. Look, you are certain of what the outcome of ending Baathist rule in Iraq will mean, thus you confidently declare that no good will come from having done so in the manner the Bush Administration did. Your certainty is unwarranted, however."

Idiot, let's try this again. You have even admitted that IF things are better in the Middle East 15 years from now, that very well may have NOTHING to do with President Bush and his war in Iraq. Therefore, it makes NO SENSE to defend the President's policies because we don't know how things will look in 15 years.

Reasonable, rational, logical people make the best decisions they can based on the available evidence. If you wanted to defend President Bush deciding to go to war in Iraq on those grounds, you might be wrong but at least it would be an intelligible argument. What you (and the President) are now saying is that it's a good idea to just throw shit against the wall in the hope that something good might eventually stick, no matter how much bad shit you keep throwing without getting anything to stick. You reason like a child, not an adult.

You know what gives you away Will? It's the fact that you obviously consider a newspaper columnist casting aspersions on President Bush's honor to be a very serious matter...while you consider a war that has gotten thousands of Americans and gotten tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqi killed to be nothing more than a dispasionate, theoretical subject to ponder.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 7, 2007 10:16 AM

No, nash, you lied. Krugman writes....

"So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?"

"Gifts" do not come in the form of 12 million dollar checks, especially to sitting governors, which is why Krugman later had to put forth a clarification, except he lacked the integrity to do so in the large forum in which he ran his original insinuation. He's a hack, no better than a Novak. The fact that you would deny the insinuating nature of a description of a "gift" of a 12 million dollar check to a sitting governor either makes you a pathetic dolt, or as dishonest as Krugman. Or, more likely, both.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 10:24 AM

No. Mike, you moron, I don't care about George Bush's honor. I care about a guy credibly talked about as a possible Nobel Prize winner writing like the worst journalistic hacks around.

Read carefully, half-wit. "Admitting" that causation can rarely be proven in geopolitics is not considered an "admission" by anyone, except by people as stupid as you. It is an obvious reality. That doesn't change the fact the end of Baathist rule in Iraq, even by George Bush's methods, has a non-trivial chance to produce an outcome that is far superior than the outcome produced by having Baathist rule in Iraq continue for many more years, if not decades.

Your childish belief in your ability to forsee the future is quite silly.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 10:37 AM

That doesn't change the fact the end of Baathist rule in Iraq, even by George Bush's methods, has a non-trivial chance to produce an outcome that is far superior than the outcome produced by having Baathist rule in Iraq continue for many more years, if not decades.

Will, your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

You haven't given any reason to believe that Bush's slaughter of the Iraqi people will have any positive effects. You haven't demonstrated that the ill effects of letting the Baathists rule Iraq would have been worse. You've simply made assertions about what would have been.

Again, your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 11:10 AM

Allen, you simply cannot help but lie every time you open your electronic mouth:

The fact that you would deny the insinuating nature of a description of a "gift" of a 12 million dollar check

claiming I said Krugman didn't insinuate anything in his column. But, inconveniently for you:

Me:

Krugman insinuated that Bush had a faulty moral compass and lacked for proper ethics. He did not insinuate criminal activity on Mr. Bush's part.

I repeat, because I think someday it may just penetrate into your consciousness: Krugman insinuated ethical misconduct, not legal misconduct.

Chant that to yourself over and over, Allen. The truth may just sink in. Otherwise, you remain a liar.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 11:12 AM

No, Nash, you dishonest hack, "gifts" of 12 million dollars to sitting governors from businessmen with interests with in government decisions insinuates a bribe, unless you are so stupid (as you may well be) as to think that people write 12 million dollar checks on a whim and a prayer. Krugman could have accurately described the business relationship involved, denounced the use of tax payer subsidy and abusive eminent domain for purely private benefit, denounced the phoney-baloney arguments put forth in support of such subsidies, and gee, maybe even have had the honesty to mention that his employer was guilty of the same practices as George W. Bush. He didn't. He chose instead to insinuate criminal activity by falsely saying that businessmen with interests in government decisions had given a "gift" of 12 million dollars to a sitting governor. Then, when he was called on it, he was so lacking in integrity that he didn't run his classless clarification/correction in the large forum in which he originally printed his insinuation, but rather in a tiny forum. Krugman is a brilliant guy, and a complete and total hack. He's Hugh Hewitt with a higher I.Q.. Congratulations to him.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 11:53 AM

Actually, I have put forth a way in which ending Baathist rule could greatly head off much greater violence, but literacy hasn't been a strong feature of this thread.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 12:34 PM

Yeah, it's obviously the rest of the world that's all fucked up.

Posted by Duane | September 7, 2007 1:14 PM

Duane, the fact that you confuse this thread with "the rest of the world" is perfectly consistent with the thread.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 1:31 PM

Finally, Allen, you come clean! (Not squeaky clean, not possible, but as close to clean as you'll ever get...but not clean enough to keep from getting Chez Allen closed by the Health Department.)

Allen says "It was a bribe after all"!

"gifts" of 12 million dollars to sitting governors from businessmen with interests with in government decisions insinuates a bribe

But, wait, some of that bribe was a payback on a promise of a 2% to 12% jump in stake! That means the bribe was promised *before* he was governor. Well, that's okay then and it was wrong of Krugman to "insinuate" pre-gov, ante-bribe-ishness, ill-gotten booty! Because that's just not illegal, is it?

Good job, Allen. You are a liar and a crank. I've seen pretzels that weren't as twisted up as you are.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 1:32 PM

Nash, I think you are insane. It's wrong to say that someone has received a "gift", when it was not a "gift". It is even more wrong to describe a sitting governor receiving a "gift" of 12 million dollars from businessmen with an interest in government decisions, when it is not a "gift", but rather compensation for performance as the managing general partner, largely in terms of obtaining subsidies for the limited partners prior to becoming governor. It is even more wrong because, in addition to being inaccurate, any non-insane person (which, to be sure, may exclude you) sitting governors receiving 12 million dollar "gifts" from businessmen with an interest in government decisions insinuates a bribe.

Adjust your meds, Nash.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:10 PM

No, Allen, wrong again. To use your own scare quotes, it most certainly WAS a "gift". An unearned increase on an equity stake for no return in kind--return to be recouped, possibly, in some unknowable future. Like maybe after he became the Gov! Perhaps they felt they had reason to EXPECT "favorable" treatment on anything/something involving their own vested interests.

Did that actually happen? Who knows?

But should it raise eyebrows? Oh yes, most certainly, except in Allenland, where the appearance of impropriety is not the problem, it's someone pointing out the appearance of impropriety. That's why Krugman said "here's why it matters."

Now, that's not actually illegal, you liar. Only in Allenland is someone thought to have been labeled guilty of taking a bribe for a quid pro quo that hasn't been named, let alone proven.

Allen, you've become the perfect metaphor for one of the striking accomplishments of this administration...lowered ethical bars for everyone, especially Allen!

Nice morals you got there, Allen. Liar.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 2:24 PM

No Will, you have never demonstrated that Baathist rule can only cause your predicted effects - the number of variables left out of your prediction far exceed the ones you used to make it. Your support for the invasion is the result of a fantasy world you've concocted.

Oddly, you see a stable world (2002) and predict chaos but take the chaos unleashed by your preferred candidate and predict stability.

Your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:35 PM

Yes, Nash, you are insane. Along with being entirely ignorant of the practices of limited partnerships. I personally know of at least 6 people (more than half Democrats, btw) who, as managing general partners, successfully obtained subsidies for the limited partners, and then when the partnership sold the business, received compensation far in excess of the general partner's % of capital contribution. Getting 12 million dollars, after successfully spearheading an effort to obtain 180 million dollars in subsidies, may be an obnoxious example of inappropriate use of state power, but it is most certainly not an "unearned" increase in an equity stake. It is indescribably stupid of you to describe it as such. Do you truly think that obtaining millions and millions and millions of dollars in subsidies for an enterprise is not work that has value to the enterprise, thus rendering compensation for that work "unearned"? Excuse me, but there is no polite way to say this: you are a complete blithering idiot.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:37 PM

The fact that someone would describe 2002 as "stable" renders any further commentary pointless.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:40 PM

"No. Mike, you moron, I don't care about George Bush's honor. I care about a guy credibly talked about as a possible Nobel Prize winner writing like the worst journalistic hacks around."

Idiot, can you not even read and understand your own writing? Anyone (with a functioning brain) reading your comments can clearly tell that you're upset with Krugman's comments and people's defense of them. Your comments also make it clear (again, with a functioning brain) that you are indifferent to President Bush launching a war that has gotten thousands of Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. You're like a guy who is more concerned about a traffic ticket than he is about his wife being raped.

"Read carefully, half-wit. "Admitting" that causation can rarely be proven in geopolitics is not considered an "admission" by anyone, except by people as stupid as you. It is an obvious reality. That doesn't change the fact the end of Baathist rule in Iraq, even by George Bush's methods, has a non-trivial chance to produce an outcome that is far superior than the outcome produced by having Baathist rule in Iraq continue for many more years, if not decades.

Your childish belief in your ability to forsee the future is quite silly."

Idiot, let me try in in all caps again. YOU ARE THE ONE INVOKING SOME POSSIBLE FUTURE AS A DEFENSE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS WAR IN IRAQ! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE FUTURE INTO THIS MATTER! YOU SAID YOU WERE RESERVING JUDGMENT ON IRAQ UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT THE MIDDLE EAST IS LIKE IN 15 YEARS, THEN YOU "ADMITTED" THAT PRESIDENT BUSH'S POLICIES MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE MIDDLE EAST LOOKS LIKE IN 15 YEARS!

1. If President Bush's policies may have little or nothing to do with conditions 15 years from now, why do you need to wait 15 years before evaluating those policies?

2. The President's policies in Iraq have at least as much of a "non-trivial" chance at producing a worse outcome as they do a better one. Given the enormous death, suffering and instability already produced by Mr. Bush's policies, why have you obsessively fixated on the possibility of a better outcome...EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE ADMITTED THAT PRESIDENT BUSH'S POLICIES MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT OUTCOME!

Idiot, you didn't say the President had fucked up BUT something good might come of it. That argument might be wrong but it is, at least, intelligble. You said the President might not have fucked up BECAUSE something good might come out of it, even though there's little to no evidence of that happening now. That's not thinking, it's wishing on a star for Tinkerbell to waive her magic wand.

At this point, you're not even like a stupid human being. You're like a stupid robot misprogrammed by a drunk janitor late one night at the factory.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 7, 2007 2:40 PM

Compared to now, the world was certainly more stable in 2002. That you don't recognize that demonstrates the extent of your delusions.

Here's the problem you have Will, going in and creating chaos in Iraq has a non-trivial chance of inflaming anti-western hatred so much that we see tens of millions killed in terrorist attacks.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:43 PM

Mike, I really don't care to converse with someone who is such an imbecile that he believes considering the future is inappropriate to discussing the relative merits of an action in the recent past. I suggest you start drinking heavily, since it can't possibly make you less lucid.

No, I never said that conditions today were more stable than, or had equal stability to, 2002. I merely mentioned that it was pointless to have a conversation with someone who described 2002 as stable.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 2:57 PM

Will, as stupid as replying to someone with your obvious mental defects is, I will attempt to explain simple facts to you. By comparison, 2002 was vastly more stable than 2007. But you want to focus on the difference between absolutely stable (which I did not say) and relatively stable - which any person of at least moderate intelligence would have inferred. Though I guess, given your demonstrated inability to deal with inference I suppose I should have spoon fed you like the orderlies do.

2002 did not have the kind of massive chaos that 2007 does. From that, relative stable, vantage point, you posited wild chaos.

2007 is wildly more chaotic than 2002. From that vantage point you posit a future far more stable than 2002.

You do this based on your ability to predict the future. You give out fantasy scenarios of what would have happened if the relative stability of 2002 were allowed to play out, but ignore more variables than you use to create this nightmare world.

Your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 3:09 PM

Exactly what Krugman was pointing out:

Getting 12 million dollars, after successfully spearheading an effort to obtain 180 million dollars in subsidies, may be an obnoxious example of inappropriate use of state power

Glad to see you finally came around to the same conclusion, Allen.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 3:31 PM

"Mike, I really don't care to converse with someone who is such an imbecile that he believes considering the future is inappropriate to discussing the relative merits of an action in the recent past. I suggest you start drinking heavily, since it can't possibly make you less lucid."

Idiot, I tried to make this point before but obviously failed to overcome your resistance to actual thinking.

You did not argue that "Sure, President Bush fucked up Iraq. However, we can't change what happened in the past and there's still a chance, if certain things happen, we could transform Iraq from it's present disaster to something better". That argument may be wrong but at least it's rational.

What you argued was "I don't know if President Bush has fucked up Iraq. Let's wait and see what the Middle East is like in 15 years". That's not rational. It's like a dull child praying to the Easter Bunny to bring him presents for Thanksgiving.

Then you got even stupider and destroyed that moronic argument by admitting that what the Middle East is like 15 years from now may have little or nothing to do with President Bush's Iraq War.

I sincerely hope you have been heavily drinking throughout this entire thread, because otherwise I'd be afraid that you are so stupid you might try and eat your pants for dinner and choke to death. So, here's hoping your a disgusting alcoholic!

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 7, 2007 3:51 PM

Nash, you dunce, I described it as such in my first post. That has exactly nothing to do with inaccurately describing compensation to the managing general partner as a "gift".

Again, it is pointless to converse with a moron who describes 2002 as stable.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 3:57 PM

"Again, it is pointless to converse with a moron who describes 2002 as stable."

Even though this pathetic argument was demonstrated to be garbage, you keep repeating it. Are you trying to lower the bar even further in the "saddest troll of the year" contest?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 7, 2007 4:19 PM

The tangled web of a liar: Allen.

Here's a guy who went into even more detail than Mr. Krugman did. It's damning, Mr. Allen, so I suggest you look away.

From the Anonymous CPA on August 19, 2002:
http://makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm

The team was purchased for $86 million in 1989 and sold in 1998 for $250 million to Tom Hicks, a person with whom Bush had prior official business while governor. As reported by Tom Kruger in his July 16, 2002 article, Tom Hicks had a relationship with Mr. Bush that afforded Hicks the opportunity to use $9 billion of the University of Texas endowment fund without any accountability. The management fee to Hicks for investing the $9 billion could have exceeded the $250 million he paid for the Texas Rangers. In effect, Bush handed Hicks the money to buy the team as part of his official duties as governor.

Hmm, does that have any appearance of impropriety about it? What say you, Allen?

In addition, the team received funding for the new stadium built by the City of Arlington. More than $150 million was funded by the City of Arlington with a new sales tax imposed on its citizens. The team leased the stadium from a development corporation that was exempt from any school district tax. The tax exemption directly reduced the lease cost to the team by a substantial amount. In addition, as governor, Mr. Bush supported legislation that would have reduced the team’s school tax by $920,000 if the team exercised its option to purchase the stadium. Furthermore, this proposed tax reduction would have benefited Bush in another entity in which he had an equity interest with some of the partners of the Texas Rangers.

According to liar Allen, it's not permitted for Mr. Krugman to point out the possibility that Mr. Bush threw ethics to the four winds? Back to Anon. CPA:

As reported in the Houston Chronicle on April 22, 1997, “The tax reform bill supported by Gov. George W. Bush would have saved at least $2.5 million in school property tax for a company founded by Bush’s billionaire business partner and top campaign contributor, Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.” Mr. Rainwater headed a public company that was a real estate investment trust traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Bush himself had 4,222 shares of this stock when he proposed the tax reduction that would have benefited this company, Crescent Real Estate Equities, by more than $2.5 million. This same company owned psychiatric hospitals throughout the country that were closed down because of scandalous and fraudulent activities as reported by 60 Minutes and various publications, all before the presidential election of 2000.

All sounds ethical to me. Nothing to look at here, right Allen? So how did that managing partner gig work out for you, George?

...it is clear that Mr. Bush earned his additional 10% of the team by adding considerable value to the team because of his political influence. Incentive clauses such as the one granted to Bush are common for managing partners adding value to their partnerships; however, such incentive clauses exercised on behalf of a sitting governor, even if he was not governor when the agreement was written, raises some serious tax questions in addition to the question of public policy conflicts of interest.

You mean that appearance of tit-for-tat is not to be remarked on? How about the tax dodge?

Allen: "Krugman is a hack."

That would be classic projection. Nice ethics, Allen.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 4:21 PM

Allen lies yet again:

Nash, you dunce, I described it as such in my first post. That has exactly nothing to do with inaccurately describing compensation to the managing general partner as a "gift".

Again, it is pointless to converse with a moron who describes 2002 as stable.

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 3:57 PM

I never talked about 2002 and stability. You are too stupid to keep your interlocutors straight. What a fool. And a liar.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 4:24 PM

Gavin at Sadly No has pretty much the last word on this in The Megan, Matt and Ezra Show:

Megan McArdle: What I mean is, why do you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway? Isn’t that a contradiction? It seems to me that it’s immoral to fund social programs because black people smell, and also paradoxes, like why is a carpet neither a car nor a pet?

Matt Yglesias: I think Megan misses the point with her post on the morality of social spending.

Ezra Klein: Studies clearly show that black people do not, in fact, have a distinctive odor.

McArdle: When I said that it’s immoral to fund social programs, I was not referring to black people.

Yglesias: Oh, well okay then.

Klein: Oh, well okay then.

It just gets better from there.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 7, 2007 4:27 PM

Nash, the remark about 2002 was not directed at you. Also, thank you for the link which agrees that Bush earned his extra 10% via successfully obtaining public subsidies for the partnership, thus establishing that Krugman's description of the 12 million as a "gift" is a lie. Are you now going to contend that the common meaning of the word "gift" describes compensation which is earned? Just how stupid are you?

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 4:36 PM

Allen:

the remark about 2002 was not directed at you.

Learn to write, Allen. Your sentence was:

Again, it is pointless to converse with a moron who describes 2002 as stable.

And the immediate and only antecedent was:

Nash, you dunce, I described it as such in my first post. That has exactly nothing to do with inaccurately describing compensation to the managing general partner as a "gift".

You want others to know you've changed the person you are addressing, signal it just as normal, non-moronic, English-speaking people would do. I will post some Cicero for you if you need help on how to carry antecedents properly (and in your case, how to change them).

And here's why careless scare quotes can be a bitch, Allen. Here it ends up biting you in the ass:

thank you for the link which agrees that Bush earned his extra 10% via successfully obtaining public subsidies for the partnership, thus establishing that Krugman's description of the 12 million as a "gift" is a lie.

Scare-quoting "gift" was your formulation, not mine. The link proves the apparent opposite of what you claim. Because of your formulation, it proves that it is just as likely that he earned no such thing, because he created the appearance of having used his position as Governor of Texas to garner the increased value. And then he fibbed on his taxes into the bargain!

But nice try. Please play again, you lying fool.

Posted by Nash | September 7, 2007 4:50 PM

The reason Will keeps using the dodge about 2002 being stable is that he's afraid. See, he tried using the idiotic "Your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly" line against someone whose comments weren't insane. Unfortunately, all of his support for Bush is based on Will Allen's ability to see foresee the future.

Will, you have refused to say 2007 is more stable. That's good. That's because it isn't.

There is a non-trivial chance that doing nothing in Iraq would have led to a more positive outcome than invading that nation and engulfing it in chaos. In fact, there is only a trivial chance that the invasion was better than doing nothing.

The truth is Will, your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 5:16 PM

Uh, Nash, the public subsides which increased the value of the partnership happened before Bush became governor, resulting in Bush's increased earned compensation, contracted for prior to becoming governor. The political influence that Bush was paid for was used BEFORE he became governor. Good gravy, you are a ignorant lackwit. Would you please endeavor to examine a timeline before jabbering stupidly any further?

Posted by Will Allen | September 7, 2007 6:21 PM

Will Allen, are you afraid to confront the fact that your support for George W. Bush is based entirely on your imagined scenarios about the future?

Have any empirical evidence to support that concoction? Oh wait, that would require knowing not just the future but the future based on events that didn't happen as well.

I guess it is pretty hard to argue your position. Telling others that they don't know what the future is given that you have presumed a wild fantasy about millions dead if your preferred candidate didn't assault the Iraqi people.

Your childish belief in your ability to [foresee] the future is quite silly.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | September 7, 2007 7:21 PM