Well, he's got a point.

Krugman on Fahrenheit 9/11 and King George:

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

(via Crooked Timber)

Share this

Because it's not just

Because it's not just innuendo and association. In relation to the attack of 9/11, the Iraq war is justified.

Oh, come on. I'll be the

Oh, come on.

I'll be the first to agree that Project Iraqi Democracy(tm) is a vital component in the WOT. A foothold in the middle east, an example of a free Arab society, is a necessary step in defeating Islamofascism (which we call "terrorism" in true PC fashion) once and for all.

But WTF does that have to do with 9/11? Yes, our conflict with Iraq is related to our conflict with Al Qaeda. But was Saddam in any way causally related to the 9/11 attacks? I'm aware of no evidence to that effect, nor is that even the argument in the post you linked.

Is the Iraq war justifiable? Yes. Is 9/11 qua 9/11 one of its justifications? No.