Strange bedfellows

I enjoyed the (unintended?) irony at the end of Paul Krugman’s column in today’s New York Times. After an honor roll of those who spoke out against the war in Iraq at the cost of derision and insults four years ago, he writes: “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.”

Look to the left of Krugman on the page and what do you find? Tom Friedman, a prominent cheerleader back in the day.

One thought on “Strange bedfellows

  1. J. Richard Finlay

    Paul Krugman is voicing a sentiment that is beginning to be more widely accepted in the face of the clear defeat of Administration polices at home and growing civil war in Iraq –conditions that might have been prevented or minimized had there been a climate which allowed for informed discussion earlier on. It was not to be found. There was in the aftermath of 9-11 a disturbing inclination on the part of the White House and others to marginalize those who asked certain questions or raised certain doubts about events leading to the war and the foundation of the decisions being made –events and decisions long since discredited even by former Administration officials and supporters –and to tar them with the brush of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The freedom enjoyed by Americans is also accompanied by the corresponding obligation to hold the mighty to account, to not conform to conventional wisdom without due deliberation, and, even occasionally, to opt out of a lock-step march with the powerful in their self-appointed rendezvous with destiny.

    I explore some of the governance failures leading up to this tragic point in American history at


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *