« The Strategic Thought of George W. Bush, Continued... | Main | The Myth of AQI » What He Said07 Sep 2007 09:01 am What Paul Krugman said about General Petraeus' upcoming testimony. This is why I'm glad he doesn't just write about economics anymore. Someone needs to be saying this stuff in the Times. The paucity of liberalism on a liberal op-ed page is pretty shocking. Of course, if the alternative to Krugman being a general political columnist for the Times was that, say, I got to be an NYT columnist, then it'd be a whole different story. But I'm not sure the world needs more Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd. Comments (31)
Oh, can we talk about Petraeus or is this supposed to be about the NY Times? Because Krugman is so right in that piece. All year our intrepid Congressmen and women have been hailing Petraeus as a hero, the guy who will solve all problems in Iraq. Congress won't stand up to their responsibility for this war, so they delegate everything to Petraeus. But even if Petraeus is the greatest militay commander since Julius Caesar he can't live up to these expectations. Nobody could. I just wish Congress would start doing their job and provide some leadership here. 
Matt (not the famous one):
The thing is, everything he says is true, and everyone who reads blogs knows it's true... and it must read like a dispatch from another planet in the pages of the NYT, compared to the other op-ed writers, to say nothing of the stenography of Michael Gordon. So it's true, but it isn't respectable, so we should probably just kick ass there for another year and a half at least, maybe more like 10 or 20 years. Sure, it's great that it's in the NYT, but it won't affect what Congress does.
Yea they need more liberal voices to counter conservatives at the times like Bob Herbert.
Thank always to Paul Krugman. After Molly Ivins, there has been no one even close to Krugman, and the person who suggests Krugman lacks a significant knowledge base is an idiot.
Sorry, Bob Herbert can be great also but not Krugman great.
Well, yeah, Krugman is better than Dowd and Friedman, but geez, the reason I'm so hard on Krugman is that he is Paul Freakin' Krugman, a guy credibly mentioned as a possible Nobel Prize winner in economics. Being better than Dowd or Friedman shouldn't even have to be mentioned. As to Petraeus, anybody who reaches that level within the military structure is in large part a politician, and should be scrutinized as any politician would be.
Jennifer,
the article, as any sensible person wouldve assumed from yglesias endorsement, is complete crap. Krugman's characterisation of democrats as too wary of republican spin to challenge petraeus is bunk. Some months ago harry reid was asked the hypothetical question "What would your repsonse be if pretraeus reported progress?", "I wouldnt believe it" was reids reply. Just recently senior democrats in briefings to the press insisted on referring to the petraeus report as the 'bush report'. From the beginning they have done exactly what krgumans article does: rather unsubtlely imply that petraeus is an unprincipled hack who'll deliver whatever message the bush administration want him to. Krugman also replicates something the fatboy did recently. Express consternation that figures for sectarian deaths dont include deaths resulting from non-sectarian conflict and then allege, completely erroneously, that these figures are being representing by the bush administration as total death figures
I'm still with McArdle on this one. Why give up a terrific economics columnist for a mediocre political columnist whose main function is to channel liberal conventional wisdom? There are plenty of places you can go for that. That said, who really cares? The importance/influence of a column in the nytimes is wildly overstated.
The truth is not liberal, Matt, and you cannot say that Krugman is a liberal for this column. (However, the facts ARE biased.)
I'm still with McArdle on this one. Why give up a terrific economics columnist for a mediocre political columnist whose main function is to channel liberal conventional wisdom? There are plenty of places you can go for that. That's actually NOT what PK does at all. His columns, unlike almost any other columnist, are infused with facts and references as an "almost Nobel Prize winner" can find, document, and interpret them, and those facts and references are woven together with an Ph.D's knowledge of economic theory and then explained to us with a master teacher's ability to bring things down to earth. Now Megan on the other hand exists to project her economic pet theory as explained by a novelist and crank from 50 years ago...
Here are some more figures for you pitiful bastards to try and figure out ways to dismiss the importance of: number of multiple fatality bombings thats right, near enough half what they were one year ago. I recall that this year to year comparison was your preference, probably because it ignores the uptrend in violence which was occuring before the surges implimentation. A much better measure would be to contrast actual figures from august 2007 with projected figures for august 2007 assuming the trend had continued. Still, even using your own weighted comparison we see significant results. number of iraqi military and police killed iraqi civillians killed(all causes) that is roughly a 20% reduction and remember violence was significantly higher in jan 07 than it was in jan 06, even if the casualties were equal it would still represent significant success. But, once again, even using a comparison weighted against the surge we see evidence of a siginificant downturn in violence.
fuck the atlantics bullshit formating of comments
"From the beginning they have done exactly what krgumans article does: rather unsubtlely imply that petraeus is an unprincipled hack who'll deliver whatever message the bush administration want him to." Normally pimp hand strikes! name alone is sufficient to discredit his posts. But in this case, he is actually right. Democratic politicians have been positioning themselves to discredit the Petraeus/Bush report. The concern amongst us liberals is that they'll back down at the last minute b/c they are afraid of the spin. But if you think I give any credit of the doubt to Bush's umpteenth hand appointed general of producing magical ponies in Iraq, you've got another thing coming.
"Not sure?" Dowd is a supercilious, insider slut-gossip-assassin. Her intellectual cuteness is like Barbie's physical cuteness. Plastic. Makes me want to retch. Friedman is an overeducated pontificator whose insider-elite information base, combined with his deeply earnest analysis of the Mid-east, causes him to reach the same conclusions as reasonably intelligent people who have only the information contained in news section of his paper. But he's always two years late. His head is flat, and his mustache would look better on a whiskbroom. Their consistent misinformation and flawed analysis corrode public understanding of and involvement with the political life of the country. The flaccidity of their critique of our Imperial Presidency makes them unfit to carry the intellectual luggage of Krugman, who has been right on the economy, right on the war, and right on the disastrous consequenses of the unitary executive's assault on this nation's system of governance. But they're Very Serious People. C'mon, Matt. You can do better than "Not sure."
Let's not forget Frank Rich. He's consistently and brilliantly called out the Bush administration's various lies and disasters.
Rich is a fool-- search for him in the Daily Howler archives, and you'll see why.
At least Rich isn't pulling a Gore all over again, as opposed to what Maureen Dowd is currently writing about. Most people don't read the NYT, but most pundits do and then they talk about what they read on TV.
Personally, I'll never understand why everyone hates Maureen Dowd so much. She's a satarist-- and seemingly just about the only one working for a major newspaper op-ed page (unless you count Joel Stein of the LA Times, who isn't any good). A lot of the criticism of her seems strangely unaware that what she writes is satire.
Dilan,
pimp, I'm interested in how the 500 Yehedizi killed in the August truck bombings count in your figures. Let's see ... they wouldn't be counted in your first figure, since you went with number of bombings in August, not with the number of people killed in bombings. And, um, they wouldn't appear in your last figures either, since you went with July figures for Iraqi deaths, not August. Are you being just a bit selective in your data? And didn't those fatalities contribute to actually a high monthly figure for Iraqi fatalities in August, a big increase from the July number you cite? Since you're touting one-month figures... And, do you know, are those 500 deaths counted at all in U.S. government figures, or, because they were bombing deaths, are they not counted as "sectarian?" Do you agree that they are not "sectarian" and are not elevant to metrics?
"Some months ago harry reid was asked the hypothetical question "What would your repsonse be if pretraeus reported progress?", "I wouldnt believe it" was reids reply." I don't give a shit what Harry Reid SAYS in some off the cuff comment. Wait until you see how he VOTES. And right now, he's waffling on "compromising" with the Repubs. That's not merely CAVING IN, it's ANNOUNCING that he's going to CAVE IN. Worthless politician.
Reid's response was exactly right. There is exactly zero possibility of General Rockstar saying, "The surge was a dumb idea. Please accept my resignation, Mr. President." What, exactly, has Bush done to earn anyone's trust on any subject, much less on how well Bush's handpicked general thinks Bush's policy is working?
Rice, If you think Krugman channels "liberal conventional wisdom" then we must read different sources. I would say the liberal Conventional Wisdom in its D.C. Beltway iteration is decidedly to the right of where Krugman sits, and much more anemic and fuzzy in its analysis. Also, I can't agree with you that Krugman is a "mediocre political columnist". PK is the best American columnist writing today, period (the only one I might think of being in close to the same league is William Pfaff per foreign affairs). Interestingly, notwithstanding with the fact that he is probably the only true professional (in the meaningful sense) among the big American columnists and one could imagine such a figure getting bogged down in the academic economics jargon of his profession, his writing is far more direct and down-to-earth than practically all of his for the most part moronic, substanceless, and woefully ignorant pundit colleagues.
Matt (not the famous one): I'm sorry you don't get the joke. But I think she's hilarious.
It is the Bush report. The White House is writing it. From the beginning they have done exactly what krgumans article does: rather unsubtlely imply that petraeus is an unprincipled hack who'll deliver whatever message the bush administration want him to. The proof is in the pudding. Just because the guy has four stars on his shirt doesn't mean he's above reproach.
putnam, figures for august not yet available. numbers of bombings refers to just that, not people killed. posting from wii so cant give u smack ur ignorance deserves
I normally like Krugman's work, but I don't think we can judge this article for 15 years.
Comments closed September 21, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I suppose I'd rather see someone w/ more of a significant knowledge base get a spot on the Times editorial page (no offense) but this is certainly something we can, I hope, all agree with,
"I'm not sure the world needs more Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd."
For that matter, we don't need as much Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd as we have.
Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | September 7, 2007 9:10 AM