[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14273-14274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PAUL KRUGMAN'S ESSAY ENTITLED ``THE WAR PRESIDENT''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 24, 2005

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues Paul Krugman's 
essay entitled ``The War President'' which was published in today's New 
York Times. How this country gets involved in a war always matters and 
since Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, every 
Member of Congress must know how we got there, what we're doing there 
now and how the war shall end.

                [From the New York Times, Jun. 24, 2005]

                           The War President

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       In this former imperial capital, every square seems to 
     contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as 
     a conquering hero.
       America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the 
     vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they 
     took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making 
     war at their own discretion.
       But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, 
     declared himself a ``war president.'' And he kept the nation 
     focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al 
     Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.
       In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House 
     correspondent, told an audience, ``I have never covered a 
     president who actually wanted to go to war''--but she made it 
     clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.
       Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart 
     of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of 
     power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral 
     quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire 
     until we face up to the reality of how we got in.
       Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the 
     decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.
       The administration has prevented any official inquiry into 
     whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of 
     circumstantial evidence that it did.

[[Page 14274]]

       And then there's the Downing Street Memo--actually the 
     minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002--in which 
     the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his 
     colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.
       ``Bush wanted to remove Saddam,'' says the memo, ``through 
     military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism 
     and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed 
     around the policy.'' It doesn't get much clearer than that.
       The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks 
     after it was released in The Times of London. Then some 
     asserted that it was ``old news'' that Mr. Bush wanted war in 
     the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, 
     it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they 
     didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they 
     have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated 
     declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.
       Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let 
     bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do 
     now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible 
     for the war be held to account.
       Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start 
     reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer 
     Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have 
     effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get 
     out.
       On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face 
     up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war 
     have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the 
     insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' says Dick Cheney. On 
     the other, they still have moderates and even liberals 
     intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will 
     have to settle for something that falls far short of victory 
     is accused of being unpatriotic.
       We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead 
     and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it 
     clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses 
     have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us 
     about patriotism.
       The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that 
     message--readier than the media are to deliver it. Major 
     media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing 
     fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that 
     ``fringe'' now comprises much if not most of the population.
       In a Gallup poll taken in early April--that is, before the 
     release of the Downing Street Memo--50 percent of those 
     polled agreed with the proposition that the administration 
     ``deliberately misled the American public'' about Iraq's 
     W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush 
     was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 
     44 percent who blamed Saddam.
       Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to 
     start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.

                          ____________________