Paul Krugman in the August 29th New York Times wrote an op-ed piece lamenting the return of "Witch-Hunt Season" because...get this...Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama. Krugman compares Obama's Administration to the Clinton Administration in terms of "political opponents" trying to dig up anything they could on the President, regardless of how far-fetched it might be.
I'll be the first to admit Republicans and conservative bought into a lot of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and that they're buying into a lot of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Some are far-fetched, and some have at least some basis in fact.
Let's hear the latter.
Kind of like Krugman's column, if you think about it.
Krugman's defense of Obama against "Witch-Hunt Season" relies on a carefully-crafted distortion: that Republicans have no reason to investigate the President. With some of the questionably-legal actions the Administration has taken, I believe there are grounds to investigate if for no other reason than to put the questions to rest once and for all.
Let's hear it!
That's pretty much the same way some Republicans went after Clinton, and as we saw then, there were some highly questionable actions the Clinton Administration and the Clintons specifically did. That's not to say all of the suggested investigations were valid, but suggesting that all of the investigations into Clinton and Obama amount to a witch-hunt is laughable.
He's getting concerned again!
Krugman's assessment of the situation seems to miss the 8 years between Clinton and Obama where George W. Bush was assaulted on almost a daily basis with accusations, not unlike what Krugman says happened to Clinton and is happening to Obama. Here's a brief list of the accusations against Bush:
- He didn't really win the Florida recount.
This was questioned because the Supreme Court vote was 5-4, and those judges were Conservative. So, where was the official investigation of illegal activity?
- His brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris conspired to cheat Al Gore.
So, where was the official investigation of illegal activity?
- He knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen.
Truthers are idiots. Pretty funny lumping Truthers and "Leftists" together. If you think for one moment that there wouldn't be just as many Truthers if Gore was president, you're sorely deluded. Conspiracy nuts against the government abound on both sides. Bush was just unfortunate enough to be President during 9/11.
Now, the case can be made that Bush was asleep at the switch and didn't take the warnings of 9/11 seriously enough, but that's hardly the same as being a Truther.
As Bill Maher said: Bush didn't mastermind 9/11. Do you know how I know? Because it WORKED!
- He arranged for relatives of Osama Bin Laden to be flown out of the US days after 9/11.
I don't think Bush personally is to blame for that. But yes, Bin Laden's family should have been held longer.
- Bush went into Iraq for oil.
Nah. The administration wanted a more military presence in that region. Bush also had personal feelings against Saddam because of the plan to assassinate his father. He also felt he needed to finish what his father begun. I don't feel it was for oil. Bush probably felt Saddam was a bad man (which he was) and that he was doing the right thing, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq having WMDs.
It was bullshit, yes. There wasn't enough evidence to support it.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium.
The CIA warned the administration that the yellowcake claims were nonsense. So yes, he made it up.
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Big Oil
So, where was the official investigation of this?
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Israel.
Nonsense (though I'm sure Israel wasn't mad about the attack).
So, where was the official investigation of this?
- He stole the 2004 election in Ohio.
There was a lot of questionable activity there. But the GOP was claiming things there, too.
- He allowed Halliburton to get no-bid contracts because of Dick Cheney.
That's at least half-right.
- Bush was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband was critical of the Administration.
I like how when you set up strawmen like these, you specifically say "Bush" in order to duck the administration itself.
But when Sherrod was asked to resign by Vilsack, you happily say "Obama's White House."
- He controlled gas prices to make money for his Big Oil buddies.
Nonsense. Gas prices are partly why he lost Republican control of Congress.
- Bush ignored the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were primarily black.
Again, you're only half-right.
I never got a racist vibe off Bush. He was an incompetent man-child, but not a racist.
- He allowed banks to run roughshod and worked against regulating them, thus causing the subprime mortgage crisis.
Most, if not all, of these statements have been made by Leftists who have demanded (and in some cases gotten) investigations into these subjects, regardless of how far from the truth they are.
But you don't say which are right or wrong, or which had official investigations. Awfully convenient for Conservatives, isn't it?
But I'm guessing that Krugman didn't have a problem with these investigations because of a) who was the President being investigated, and b) who was pushing for the investigations. That undermines his credibility, what little he has, on this subject.
And let's not forget that it was Democrat strategist James Carville who talked about going to "war" against the Republicans in the latter part of the Clinton years, suggesting that Democrats would investigate any Republican President as vigorously as the Republicans investigated Clinton. Surprise surprise, that happened. Yet, no admonition from Krugman. Funny, huh?
Seems as though the "Witch-Hunt Season" isn't back...because it never stopped.
Oh, please. Never stopped? Democrats aren't like Republicans. You guys would happily tear the country apart over lying about a blowjob. There was far more appropriate cases against Bush lying that should have put him in shackles, but it didn't happen. And it sure wasn't because of lack of evidence.