It's NO Epiphany

It's no epiphany that Paul Krugman is illogical.

He positively relishes in the comments of conservative critics of the Bush Administration. He wallows in the negative remarks that they direct at Bush, so much so that he devotes a column to conservatives that don't march in lockstep like knee-jerk libs.

Krugman's column, "The Conservative Epiphany, Bush's New Critics," is a classic whiny, vindictive, "I told you so," self-serving liberal piece. Oh, wait. Did I leave out "illogical"?

He writes:

Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.

Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Krugman, like so many libs, freely employs logical fallacies.

His commentary comes off like the ranting of one "with steam pouring out of his ears" because he so frequently throws sound reasoning out the window.

Note to Krugman: ALL OF BUSH'S SUPPORTERS COULD TURN THEIR BACKS ON HIM AND THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU WERE AND ARE UNPLEASANTLY SHRILL.


Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

The truth is that everything the new wave of Bush critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts.

Some constructive criticism--

Krugman should take a remedial course on logic. It might help him.

Mr. Bartlett's book is mainly a critique of the Bush administration's fiscal policy. Well, the administration's pattern of fiscal dishonesty and irresponsibility was clear right from the start to anyone who understands budget arithmetic. The chicanery that took place during the selling of the 2001 tax cut — obviously fraudulent budget projections, transparently deceptive advertising about who would benefit and the use of blatant accounting gimmicks to conceal the plan's true cost — was as bad as anything that followed.

Here Krugman admits that Bartlett is talking about fiscal policy, yet Krugman extrapolates Bartlett's views to include other Bush Administration policies. That's a giant illogical leap.

The false selling of the Iraq war was almost as easy to spot. All the supposed evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program was discredited before the war — and it was the threat of nukes, not lesser W.M.D., that stampeded Congress into authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war. The administration's nonsensical but insistent rhetorical linkage of Iraq and 9/11 was also a dead giveaway that we were being railroaded into an unnecessary war.

The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence.

No. The point is that Krugman makes baseless accusations. He makes statements without proof of their veracity. Before he can come to these conclusions, he must provide evidence for his position. The burden of proof rests with Krugman.

Allow me to make a statement in Krugman's style--

The point is that individuals who failed to notice Krugman's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence.

Ooooh. Being illogical feels so good.

But as I said, better late than never. Born-again Bush-bashers like Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Sullivan, however churlish, are intellectually and morally superior to the Bushist dead-enders who still insist that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, and will soon be claiming that we lost the war in Iraq because the liberal media stabbed the troops in the back. And reporters understandably consider it newsworthy that some conservative voices are now echoing longstanding liberal critiques of the Bush administration.

Once again, Krugman pulls out the old "Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda" line. (Yawn.)

Don't you love Krugman's judgments regarding the intellectual and moral superiority of certain individuals?

If only Krugman would become a born-again logician. Sadly, some dreams are destined to die.

In my opinion, an opinion piece must be grounded in facts and rely on sound reasoning to be worthy of serious consideration.

It's still fair, however, to ask people like Mr. Bartlett the obvious question: What took you so long?

The obvious question: Is Krugman capable of writing a well-reasoned, intellectually honest column?