"Sandman" wrote in message ...
In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman takes on the Bush administration's
war of attrition against all things verifiable:

You mean Paul Krugman the virulent anti-semite?

You mean the Paul Krugman who pocketed $50,000 as a consultant to
Enron yet admitted he "did nothing" to earn it?

You mean the Paul Krugman whose UK edition of his book The Great
Unraveling features a picture of VP Cheney with a Hitlerian oil
mustache?

You mean the Paul Krugman who writes for the NEW YORK "all the news
that's fit to make up" TIMES?

THAT Paul Krugman?

Wow, he's sure credible...

Why don't you just quota Al Jezeera?



"[L]ast week the [Republican National] committee unveiled its first ad for
the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come. "Some are now attacking
the president for attacking the terrorists," it declares.
Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt someone doesn't believe
that we should attack terrorists. But the serious criticism of the
president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse: that after an
initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention - and crucial
resources - from fighting terrorism to other projects.

What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the
campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special
Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan
to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted
from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed
Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped
the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all
accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking
the president for attacking the terrorists?

The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again - without saying
anything falsifiable - that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Now
that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making the
rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it
was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror."