There are a lot of curse words coming to mind having read Paul Krugman's blog post in today's (Sept. 11) NY Times. For now I'll just call him a very despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Here is just a part of this atrocity of a piece -- for which he has deliberately disallowed comments from online readers:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
The reason I call Krugman despicable and partisan is because he has the audacity to call the nation's only leaders "fake heroes". How dare you, Krugman, you piece of you-know-what? Kerik, Giuliani, and especially Bush were real leaders on 9/11 and afterward. They acted like adults and made tough on-the-spot decisions. Krugman wouldn't know what a real hero is because his heroes include Barack Hussein Obama, himself a despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Krugman's hero is, as Rush Limbaugh calls him, a "man-child," an immature petulant little brat who even nearly three years into his presidency blames everyone else for his own failures.
Why hypocritical? Krugman accuses professional pundits "who should have understood what was happening" of taking the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the alleged corruption of the "neocons"? The only pundits I followed were those who understood that the world has good and evil and that it was not only morally correct but life-saving to take a side. My favorite pundits understood that for at least a decade prior to 9/11 a vicious sect of Muslim radicals had been metastasizing into a worldwide cult of murderous terrorists. Manhattan and Washington D.C. were simply their latest target; they had already successfully bombed several U.S. embassies and military entities. And when that happened Bill Clinton -- another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- took the easy way out and turned a blind eye!
On the contrary, it was Krugman himself as well as his colleagues at the Bush Sucks Times and other liberal media outlets who used their word processors and microphones to commit what I would call treasonous acts against this nation. It is Krugman and company who gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies with their Bush- and America-bashing rhetoric. It is Krugman and company who turned a non-story like Abu Ghraib not only into a weapon to bash Bush with, but as a motivation for radical Muslims around the world to hate America even more! It is Krugman and company that made up libelous accusations against our military, who made up stories about Qurans being flushed down toilets at Club G'tmo, who made it a point to lie about Bush's own military record when a certain Communism-loving traitor named John Kerry -- yet another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- ran against him in 2004. It is Krugman and company who have created the disgusting myth that America suffers from an epidemic of "Islamophobia," when the truth is that even after 9/11 Muslims have had it pretty damn good here. It is Krugman and company who have emboldened radical Muslims in this country by threatening Americans with litigation if they report the "wrong people" (read: non-white) doing something suspicious on a plane.
Finally, the hypocrical and morally bankrupt Krugman writes that the memory of 9/11 has been "poisoned" and has become "an occasion for shame." I actually agree with that, but not for the same reasons. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned and shamed the memory of 9/11. They barely refuse to even mention that it was radical Muslims who committed 9/11, or the London train bombing, or Mumbai, or Bali, or Fort Hood, etc., etc. They don't even want you to know that since 9/11 Muslims have murdered over 17,000 human beings in the name of their religion. The words "Muslim" and "Islam" have been all but whitewashed from the mere 1o-year-old history of 9/11, when it should be the central focus. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned 9/11 by turning it into a day of self-reflection (What did we do to provoke them?), a day of community service, of celebrating diversity and discussing bullying and other forms of multiculti liberal crapola. Radical Muslims have had no problem calling us out as the enemy. It's in their books and TV shows (even for children), newspapers, mosques, and manifestos, and yet the only time head-up-their-ass loony leftists like Krugman do not bring up the M- or I-word is when it's an opportunity to write about how Americans are somehow terrorizing them. Sorry, Krugman, you little know-nothing twerp, it is people like you who have taken the easy way out and turned the other way to the reality called Islamic jihad. It is people like you who have poisoned the day and shamed the memory of those who lost their lives. And it is leftists (not Krugman himself but they know who they are) who poisoned 9/11 by calling it an "inside job" created by Bush and Cheney and their cabal of "neocons" and "oil buddies".
Do NOT think that just because 9/11 is already 10 years past that you can rewrite history so easy.