Tuesday, July 18, 2006

then and now

March of Folly

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 17, 2006
Since those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it — and since the cast of characters making pronouncements on the crisis in the Middle East is very much the same as it was three or four years ago — it seems like a good idea to travel down memory lane. Here’s what they said and when they said it:

“The greatest thing to come out of [invading Iraq] for the world economy ... would be $20 a barrel for oil.” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), February 2003

“Oil Touches Record $78 on Mideast Conflict.” Headline on www.foxnews.com, July 14, 2006

“The administration’s top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion,” saying that “earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.” The New York Times, Dec. 31, 2002

“According to C.B.O.’s estimates, from the time U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, $290 billion has been allocated for activities in Iraq. ... Additional costs over the 2007-2016 period would total an estimated $202 billion under the first [optimistic] scenario, and $406 billion under the second one.” Congressional Budget Office, July 13, 2006

“Peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than historical experience in the Balkans suggests. There’s been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another that produced so much bloodshed and permanent scars in Bosnia.” Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and now president of the World Bank, Feb. 27, 2003

“West Baghdad is no stranger to bombings and killings, but in the past few days all restraint has vanished in an orgy of ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Shia gunmen are seeking to drive out the once-dominant Sunni minority and the Sunnis are forming neighborhood posses to retaliate. Mosques are being attacked. Scores of innocent civilians have been killed, their bodies left lying in the streets.” The Times of London, July 14, 2006

“Earlier this week, I traveled to Baghdad to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.” President Bush, June 17, 2006

“People are doing the same as [in] Saddam’s time and worse. ... These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.” Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush’s choice as Iraq’s first post-Saddam prime minister, November 2005

“Iraq’s new government has another able leader in Speaker Mashhadani. ... He rejects the use of violence for political ends. And by agreeing to serve in a prominent role in this new unity government, he’s demonstrating leadership and courage.” President Bush, May 22, 2006

“Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.’ These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.” Mahmoud Mashhadani, speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, July 13, 2006

“My fellow citizens, not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.” President Bush, Dec. 18, 2005

“I think I would answer that by telling you I don’t think we’re losing.” Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, when asked whether we’re winning in Iraq, July 14, 2006

“Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. ...Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.” Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

“Bush — The world is coming unglued before his eyes. His naïve dreams are a Wilsonian disaster.” Newsweek Conventional Wisdom Watch, July 24, 2006 edition

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, Dec. 6, 2005

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now.” Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, on the campaign against Slobodan Milosevic, April 28, 1999

9 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...

If anyone has hoofed as far along the March of Folly as P.Krugman, it is surely the one who quotes him approvingly.

The Darkroom said...

i won't dispute this. still there are interesting statements. Wolfie's definitely my fave.

Arelcao Akleos said...

Yes, let's hope Wolfie has a better intuition with the bean counters and amphora merchants than he has with men who fight and kill.
Only someone actually trusting his CIA analysts could have muttered something so inane. And only an idiot would trust his CIA analysts.
But, even if he did so trust, a little reflection on Syria and Iran, next door and with everything to lose, should have disabused him in quick time of that silly notion.

The Darkroom said...

There are some true gems in there: this one's a beauty

“Earlier this week, I traveled to Baghdad to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.” President Bush, June 17, 2006

if that's freedom & democracy, i'll take oppression, thank you very much.

Incidentally, with 14,000 iraqis dead in the last 6 months - 3,000 in June alone, the majority of which from sectarian violence, isn't it time we call this a civil war, or is this still sectarian strife ? The administration has resisted the labeling for the longest time, almost as much as defining what they consider to be civil war.

Arelcao Akleos said...

Pepe, we know you would take oppression any time, and Saddam thanks you for that. There is a happy place in Baghdad for you should the Great Leader rise as a Phoenix from the ashes.

Arelcao Akleos said...

Oh, yes, it certainly would not be "Gauche" of me to point out that the ones who are carrying out the vast bulk of the killing in Iraq are not those who support democracy. It is, in fact, being carried out by those who would give Pepe the oppression he so NEEDS

The Darkroom said...

my point is simply that the us is doing a piss-poor job at promoting democracy in iraq and that there is little for w to brag about on the topic. The contention that it is free and democratic as it is in reality sinking into civil war makes a mockery of the very notion of freedom and democracy.

Tecumseh said...

Oftentimes, freedom and democracy need to be earned on the field of battle -- they don't come up on a silver platter. Eg, there was not much of either in Vichy France -- it took those now-despised John Wayne Ricains to relaunch f & d in France, after they both were surrendered without much of a fight by the French. The filed of battle, though, is a messy, nasty affair. So what's the alternative, then? Forget about freedom and democracy, have the Pierre Lavals of this world run things for eternity? Nice.

The Darkroom said...

>>Oftentimes, freedom and democracy need to be earned on the field of battle

W's chest-beating statement was:
“Earlier this week, I traveled to Baghdad to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.” President Bush, June 17, 2006

i am not disputing your statement - just that high-fives are awfully premature at this point in the game.
Considering the accelerating pace of the killings in the last few months it sure ain't braggin' time.

instead of freedom bells ringing, the situation on the field suggests that the occupation has spun out of control and the american inept administration has allowed for a full-blown civil war to develop.

In the apparent absence of any plan to resolve the problem, this isn't really surprising.

Given the propensity of the WH to hype up and take credit for all the achievements in this war (zarky and the multiple corners turned), it is important to point out its significant failures if one is interested in a balanced perspective.