The Years of Shame
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?
(And what would you expect them to be?)
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...
(How exactly did they 'race to cash in' on this? Usefully devoid of content, this claim doesn't make clear whether or not the prize winning economist thinks it was used as some sort of pretext for nefarious ends, OR instead thinks that these ne'er do wells 'cashed in' by writing memoirs. He probably is insinuating both. As to the first):
....And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
(Those dastardly "neo-cons" had been gunning for Iraq, and jumped on the opportunity to rationalize going into that country for oil. Right.
And, as for the 'phony hero' crap: Go tell that to Rudy, who was in the thick of it, watching people falling from the sky. Read his memoir you creep. To suggest a heartless manipulation or taking advantage of his position as leader during the attacks is more an indicator of the morally diseased mind of Krugman than it is the motivations of Bush, Giuliani, and Kerik. All three, and especially Rudy were effective and calming leaders during those difficult days. If little Paul had any guts he'd make these scurrilous charges directly to these men whom he besmirches. No. Instead he limits his venom to a little blog post at the Slimes. This guy is really just a slightly watered down version of Alex Jones.)
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?
(Once again a charge against un-named others, which makes it hard to address, other than, to once again say, that he broad brushes a whole class of people with the most base and cynical motivations. Once again, this is more a reflection of his utterly politicized mind than it is the actual motivations and etc., of the un-named people he hasn't the courage to besmirch either face-to-face or by name.)
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
(Once again, the poison seems to be in the jaundiced eye of the beholder. His evidence? How does he know we are secretly ashamed? By what penetrating perception does he gather this?
By way of observing the "subdued" character of the memorial events.
And if, pray tell, the observances were not 'subdued'? How would Krugman have responded? Predictable: Words like 'crass', 'jingoistic', 'hate-filled', 'triumphal' would have probably appeared in this blog post. You see, you cannot win with the likes of Krugman. No matter how you behave, it is proof of YOUR utter depravity. Not his.)
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Why would that be Krug? Because you are a complete and utter contemptable fool who hasn't the foggiest idea how to even contemplate applying the principle of charity to your political opposites?