More like this
Krugman in the doghouse over ‘shameful’ 9/11 blog
Critics continue to attack author and New York Times days after explosive piece first appeared
LEFT-LEANING New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is at the centre of a political firestorm in America after posting a blog on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that veered wildly away from the orthodox sentiments about the tragedy.
The short but explosive piece denounced "fake heroes" including Rudy Giuliani and George W Bush for the "hijacking of the atrocity" and, clearly referring to the ensuing war in Iraq, said: "The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it."
Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, obviously knew what was coming when he wrote the piece, entitled: 'The conscience of a liberal'. He signed off by saying: "I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."
That has not stopped people expressing their thoughts on his article. And most of them have been pretty strident. Donald Rumsfeld called the article "repugnant" on Twitter and immediately announced he had cancelled his subscription to the New York Times. Blogger Michelle Malkin called him a "smug coward".
The attacks have come thick and fast ever since and show no signs of abating. Even the liberal media appear confused by the tone and timing of the piece, though the claim that the attacks were used to justify an overseas war for political ends is hardly a new one.
Greg Sargent said as much in the Washington Post, but added: "Making the charge on the 10th anniversary itself seems deliberately provocative."
Erik Wimple, also at the Washington Post, notes that the row is now in its third stage, with anger focusing on Krugman's decision not to allow comments. He calls the decision "cowardly", "bewildering" and "arrogant".
Chicago-based blogger Peter Bella says he was initially lost for words at the notion of not being able to comment on Krugman’s posting. Now he has come to the conclusion that "Krugman is vile. He has no conscience... He used his blog to poison the day."
While Krugman deals with the fall-out, the Times iself is also coming under attack. Jennifer C Braceras in the Boston Herald wrote: "By publishing Krugman's hateful blog post on Sunday, the Times went too far. It has now lost all credibility, rendering it (and Paul Krugman) irrelevant."
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post also turned on the 'Gray Lady': "The jewel of the liberal media is revealed to be an intellectual black hole and a spiritual wasteland. No wonder it is a dying enterprise. Its countrymen have better things to do than be insulted by the likes of Krugman." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Perhaps if Krugman had allowed comments he would have been surprised to learn that an overwhelming number of Americans agree with him.
It appears that the right wing press in America still don't want to discuss the damage done post 9/11. Whilst the terrorist attack was an abhorrent event, what has been done in "Freedom's" name since then is just as bad in many ways.
How many people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan (& neighboring countries) to make the world a safer place, when it just does not appear to be?
How can you make the claim that, "Even the liberal media appear confused by the tone and timing of the piece..." and then not actually quote any of the so-called liberal media outlets? Washington Post? Distinctly inside the beltway conservative. Blogger Peter Bella? Ex-cop and according to his own description, "center-right." Jennifer C. Braceras? Self-described "red mom in a blue state." None of these people serve as evidence of your contention---logic fail.
Having your article described as repugnant by someone as repugnant as rumsfeldt - now there's a badge of honour which should be worn proudly and prominently.
Hell, I'd insist on having it carved onto my gravestone.
If anyone doubts that something bad has happened to the USA as a result of 9/11, the reaction to Paul Krugman's piece is the living proof. What he said was entirely correct. This tragedy WAS hijacked by Bush and Giuliani (and our very own Tony Bliar), and in the past ten years, tens of thousands of largely innocent people have died as a result.
More importantly, the USA squandered its legacy as the only true superpower, it lost the sympathy of the entire world, and turned upon itself in an outpouring of bile and anger as a result.
We can only watch and grieve at the damage caused by the hideous morons of the Tea Party, the cretinous Palin and Bachmann, and the other facists and religious fundamentalists who hold America hostage.
Three cheers and dozens of plaudits for Paul Krugman. It is about time someone in the media had the courage to call out the political creeps that have been exploiting 9/11 for years. Rudy Giuliani had to be the worst. During the aftermath of 9/11, Giuliani became a tour guide for visiting glitterati around the wrecked site. He also banned photographers from recording much of the damage, then he, hypocrite that he is, promptly put out a photo essay book of all the photos he personally took. King George W, turned the event into a political excuse to conduct endless wars. Rumsfeld's comments are meaningless as he was one of the architects of the ensuing slaughters that took place under the guise of restoring freedom. The crowning insult was when Time magazine was wrestling with the question of who should be the man (or men) of the year. It came down to all the brave firemen, many of whom lost their lives or who are now facing a life of poor health for their heroic deeds, or Rudy "Ghouliani," a duplicitous, failed political hack whose political career was revived by all the misplaced publicity he received. No surprises here as Time's editors chose the ego centric creep over real American heroes.
Paul Krugman, you are somewhat of a hero for bursting the illusionary bubble that most Americans wrongly, and like lemmings, believe in.
I think he was trying to make the people think. Not the first time I have seen the miss-guided try to convince the voters to actually have an intelligent thought. The USA installs evil, criminal henchmen to reign over the people and they act surprised when the people get angry and strike back.
I would suggest these people stop concentrating on one mans opinion and develop one of their own. Thee reason the world is collapsing is the people. The relatively small number of 'registered voters' on the planet have not monitored their employees (the elected). All they do is install a leader then go about their business and forget that the leaders are human. They make mistakes. Then they blame everybody but themselves. There is no way Krugman has the time to answer the stupid comments that would be submitted.
So, quit looking outside for someone to blame. Go look in the mirror. After the young Arabs take care of their criminal governments they will come after ours. Let us think about the future and do something besides blaming brain-dead politicians for thinking of their family first and yours last.
Brian Elwin Pomeroy
Sad that I had to edit my screen name to something new in order to even think about commenting on this subject.
Is it the realization that the American Century is over that makes political discourse so brittle, shrill and vitriolic?
Personally, I believe the facts alone as they've played out, post-9/11, bear out Krugman's view. But even if you disagree with him - it's hardly 'vile' or 'hateful' copy..........
He must have hit that nail squarely on the head then...