Nobel Prize-winning economic genius Paul Krugman utterly eviscerated Hillary Clinton in his latest column, a Free Beacon analysis has found.
Writing in the New York Times on Monday, Krugman argued that the Iraq War wasn’t merely an "innocent mistake," but rather a "criminal" act perpetrated upon the American people and the world. The Krug then offered a scathing condemnation of politicians who supported the war effort, such as Hillary Clinton:
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
In other words, Krugman is saying that Hillary Clinton either A) has monumentally poor judgment, B) knew the case for invading Iraq was based on faulty evidence, but supported it anyway because she loves war, or C) supported a disastrous invasion because she thought it would help her political career. One imagines that none of these options describe a quality that Democrats would like to see in a presidential nominee. And yet, liberals are praising Hillary's answer to a question about the Iraq War on Tuesday.
"I've made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple," she said. "And I have written about it in my book; I've talked about it in the past."
That's her brilliant answer: "Oops." As Krugman wrote, she would clearly prefer not to talk about it, presumably because at every stage of the conflict in Iraq, Hillary's position (pro-invasion, anti-surge, pro-withdrawal) has been the most conducive to the rise of ISIS. Kudos to Krugman for calling her out.