Democratic Underground - Krugman: They Told You So

There have been many threads here about potential 2008 candidates. As usual, there's lots of disagreement about many issues with them and among those issues is who voted for/supported the war and who didn't. My political support goes to those who got it, not to those who didn't. I don't support Hillary for a variety of reasons, this being one of them. It has nothing to do with her being a woman or a DLC'er (though that doesn't help her) or a Clinton, it has much to do with judgment (among other issues).

This is where I struggle with ALL legislators who voted for the war. There were plenty who did get it and voted against it (or would have were they in Congress at the time). They spoke out against the war and were reviled because of their candor -- they were called all kinds of names, the majority calling them unpatriotic cowards. For me, it comes down a few things, judgment and conscience among them. As Krugman says in his last paragraph (referring to those with the courage to speak out against the war before it began).

We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war — or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly — should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security.

Here is part of Krugman's "partial list" of those who should be honored for speaking out and/or voting against the war (it includes HW Bush and Scowcroft, who got it during his administration -- clipped to comply with board regulations):

Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: “I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq’s forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.”

Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”

Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Representative John Spratt, October 2002: “The outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: “When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”

Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/opinion/08krugman.html?pagewanted=print

(Edited to add the link I forgot.)

Krugman: They Told You So [View All]