Cindy Sheehan throws in the towel

So now, instead of focusing on the article, we're focusing on the writer? That's a tired and lame ploy, designed to shift focus from a losing argument to one in which you think you might win.

 

It's not just the war in Iraq. That's what kills me about this "Is W a good guy" argument. People always say, "Well, he believes he's doing the right thing over there. He's not killing people intentionally."

But that war is only a piece of the puzzle. To me, it's the other shit he's done that makes him evil. Things like sending a couple of guys to his anesthetized attorney general's bedside to try and get him to sign off on, while in a drug-induced haze, an illegal wiretapping program. Or saying the shit he did about McCain in 2000. Or looking directly into the camera on so many occasions and lying his ass off. Or acting like a complete and utter dick whenever anyone questions his idiotic ideas. Or intentionally making false proclamations about WMDs and Iraq's threat in order to fight a senseless war. Or refusing to admit how bad he's screwed up in Iraq and continuing to allow US citizens to die for his mistakes.

I could keep going, but there's no point. Over and over again this man has proven to be unbelievably self-serving and petty. He's put the country at risk, sacrificed thousands of American lives and left the US with an unbelievable amount of debt all while he and his pals served themselves.

When we look back 50 or 60 or 100 years from now on W's eight-year tenure, the first term we use to describe him and his staff might not be evil, but it'll definitely be on the short list.

 

Alley - I'm not sure what you mean. My feelings on this dubious war on Iraq and many of the invasive and I would argue unconstitutional GWB policies post 9/11 have been very clearly stated.

I just think any columnist who is so seemingly singularly focused on one pet issue -- and "GWB is evil and his war and tax cuts are killing our country" is clearly Krugman's pet issue -- is not doing his readership any favors. Some in this business would call it "mailing it in"

And when I see one guy writing the same stuff over and over and over with very little fresh and new ideas or angles, I think he loses his impact.

Now, my paper only runs his column once a week, so maybe he is a little more diverse than I've seen but I doubt it.

 

Most of what you written in your explanation for why you think he is "evil" which as Alley said is a very strong term -- describes a lot of politicians. The lust for power and influence has a way of changing even the best of people.

 

I'm tired of that cop-out bullshit too. It doesn't describe a lot of politicians. There are very few people at any level of government who would try some of the shit this guy has. The illegal wiretapping, all the while denying its existence. The secret prisons, all the while denying any knowledge of it. Come on. You can admit it or keep dancing around it and making lame excuses, but the guy's evil based on his actions. And those actions have proven over and over again that he doesn't give two shits about you or me.

 

I don't think the guy intentionally wants to kill or hurt anyone or put anyone in the poor house. He is a bad president by just about every measure, I think how bad will be determined by what he does to get us out of Iraq.

 

You can't make these two arguments at the same time: 1) He's not evil, he's just made incredibly bad decisions, and 2) He's smarter than people give him credit for.

You've got two choices: Either he's the dumbest and unluckiest son of a bitch to hold any political office of any kind, or he's evil.

 

Zag, you made my point for me. You wrote a three-graph diatrabe about Krugman when HE ISN'T THE FOCUS. You just MADE him the focus. Who cares about the writer? It's WHAT HE WROTE that matters.

Jesus, folks, it's called substance over form, a concept which shouldn't be lost in journalistic circles. As much as we complain about ESPN's shallowness, to turn around and play the same game in a much big issue arena like the war is pathetic.

You focus on the "one-trick-pony" aspect as opposed to the war, Zag. That's what's a shame.

 

He might indeed be the dumbest son of a bitch to be president, but the guy did get a degree from Yale and did find a way to become the president of the United States so he isn't exactly a monkey, either.

 

Would you be so focused on the content if, say, Ann Coulter wrote it? Are you telling me you never take into account the credibility of who you are reading, particularly when it is a column?

That's all I am saying. I'm not trying to start a fight, here, really, I'm just saying when I read anything in a newspaper or online, I first try and take a look at who wrote it because that gives me some insight into how credible it is.

I will say this --- unlike most of Krugman's usual drivel -- at least here he also takes the Democrats to task for their role in (a) allowing this war to continue for political reasons and (b) allowing this president to get away with starting a war without holding his feet to the fire in the first place.

That is more balanced than he usually is.

 

I'm not saying I don't take credibility into account. What I do first, though, is read the column, then go from there. But to be honest, out of the hundreds of columns which are linked to from this site, I can honestly say I've read about 95 percent of them without even noticing (or looking) at who wrote the damn thing.

Zag, a good point is a good point, whether it's said by a person I hate or a person I live or a person I know nothing about. If Ann Coulter made a legit point about a political or social issue, one with which I agreed and one which speaks to me, then I'd gladly give her props for being right. (she's not, but that's besides the point).

I'm the same way with music. I like the song, not the singer. Who gives a swut about the Dixie Chicks or their politics? I just like hearing Traveling Soldier.

 

I think one of the points he makes is very interesting -- how in the world did we get to the point we are with this war?