Sunday, September 11, 2011

Paul Krugman is a Horse's Ass

Paul Krugman, self-proclaimed conscience of the liberal establishment, beared down on his pent up resentments, and out squeezed this little gem of a piece for 9/11:
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The 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.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Well, the most obvious reason is that there is almost nothing to comment on. It's as devoid of detail as a piece could be.

Listen, Paul, next time you feel the urge to impugn the character of others, send a note to your mother, but don't print the damn thing in the New York Times. It's embarrassingly empty of substance, though I do appreciate it's brevity. I wish all your articles were so brief. Sadly, that's not the case. Just a couple of days before the economics professor and New York Times columnist wrote how pleased he was with the president's new jobs proposals as voiced in his recent speech to the combined houses of congress.

What a ding-bat.


I see The Hyacinth Girl noticed Krugman pissing off in the corner and had a few choice words for him. She's a good one.


  1. Remember when "don't polticize 9/11" was all the rage with the Democrats/liberals a few years back?

    I guess the moratorium is ten years.

  2. As soon as they realized that the nation had to respond to the attack and would follow the president, the increased public support he necessarily would receive meant they had to put a stopper on the whole thing right away. Carville was saying "We can't let this here go on", and encouraged the Dems to split away and start criticizing the president. Tom Daschle led off, holding a press conference critical of the lack of action on the part of the president. The only problem was he gave the press conference the morning the bombs started to fall in Afghanistan, and US Special Forces working with the Northern Alliance brought retribution to the Taliban that had sheltered Osama bin Laden. Then we were treated to Ted Kennedy decrying the new Vietnam, the quagmire, the Texas oil men getting their hands on the resources of the Middle East, the "no blood for oil" cry, Joe Wilson's bogus report from Nigeria, and so forth. Darrell can rattle this stuff off like a machine gun.

    Krugman's post on 9/11 was the height of inserting politics into the attack upon our country. The left's always been that way. The War on Terror has been nothing more to them than a back drop to their main battle, the battle for political control of the country. Thanks for your comment, E.