/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\
THE DREAMERS - IN SELECT CITIES
Set against the turbulent political backdrop of 1968 France
when the voice of youth was reverberating around Europe, THE
DREAMERS is a story of self-discovery as three students test
each other to see just how far they will go. THE DREAMERS
is now playing in select theaters.
for more info:
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thedreamers/index_nyt.html
\----------------------------------------------------------/
Op-Ed Columnist: Taken for a Ride
March 19, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he
saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to
support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on
anything you were aiding terrorists.
Now we know that he meant just that.
A year ago,
President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the
terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else
instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how
badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will -
and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass
destruction - damaged our credibility. They imagine that
only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly
Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to
Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland - which has
roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq - had this to say: "That
they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction,
that's true. We were taken for a ride."
This is the context for last weekend's election upset in
Spain, where the Aznar government had taken the country
into Iraq against the wishes of 90 percent of the public.
Spanish voters weren't intimidated by the terrorist
bombings - they turned on a ruling party they didn't trust.
When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for
the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the
contrary and used its control over state television and
radio both to push its false accusation and to play down
antigovernment protests, it reminded people of the broader
lies about the war.
By voting for a new government, in other words, the
Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the
essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr.
Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on
the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the
speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge
terrorist attack within their country and they chose to
change their government and to, in a sense, appease
terrorists."
So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the
nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to
protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a
cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its
electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory
for the terrorists.
Notice, by the way, that Spain's prime minister-elect
insists that he intends to fight terrorism. He has even
said that his country's forces could remain in Iraq if they
were placed under U.N. control. So if the Bush
administration were really concerned about maintaining a
united front against terrorism, all it would have to do is
drop its my-way-or-the-highway approach. But it won't.
For these denunciations of Spain, while counterproductive
when viewed as foreign policy, serve a crucial domestic
purpose: they help re-establish the political climate the
Bush administration prefers, in which anyone who opposes
any administration policy can be accused of undermining the
fight against terrorism.
This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing John
Kerry of, among other things, opposing increases in combat
pay because he voted against an $87 billion appropriation
for Iraq. Those who have followed this issue were
astonished at the ad's sheer up-is-down-ism.
In fact, the Bush administration has done the very thing it
falsely accuses Mr. Kerry of doing: it has tried repeatedly
to slash combat pay and military benefits, provoking angry
articles in The Army Times with headlines like "An Act of
`Betrayal.' " Oh, and Mr. Kerry wasn't trying to block
funds for Iraq - he was trying to force the administration,
which had concealed the cost of the occupation until its
tax cut was passed, to roll back part of the tax cut to
cover the expense.
But the bigger point is this: in the Bush vision, it was
never legitimate to challenge any piece of the
administration's policy on Iraq. Before the war, it was
your patriotic duty to trust the president's assertions
about the case for war. Once we went in and those
assertions proved utterly false, it became your patriotic
duty to support the troops - a phrase that, to the
administration, always means supporting the president. At
no point has it been legitimate to hold Mr. Bush
accountable. And that's the way he wants it.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/opinion/19KRUG.html?ex=1080732456&ei=1&en=606e3cb274e8b1ad
---------------------------------
Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar � FREE! -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
