Contemptible Krugman

[Sandra]

New York times columnist Paul Krugman: The conscience of a liberal? The contemptible thought-closet of a no-class coward is more like it

Contemptible Krugman

 Arnold Ahlert  Monday, September 12, 2011
 
New York times columnist Paul Krugman has always been a small man. But it took the 10th commemoration of 9/11 to reveal exactly how small. In a column entitled “Years of Shame,” under the general headline “The Conscience of a Liberal,” Mr. Krugman revealed exactly how compromised his leftist-addled conscience truly is.

“What happened after 9/11 ­ and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not ­ was deeply shameful,” Krugman wrote. “Te (sic) 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.”

Take your pick regarding which is worse: Krugman’s shameful effort to single out three men, all of whom did a masterful job keeping a distraught nation on an even keel after the worst domestic attack in history as “fake heros” ­ or his mind-boggling attempt to completely re-write history regarding Americans’ reaction to an unprecedented national tragedy.

Perhaps Mr. Krugman was hiding under his bed during the time when millions of Americans forgot their squabbles and banded together for months. Maybe he fails to remember the outpouring of patriotism and the millions of American flags people planted on everything from their cars and houses to their clothing.

But I suspect not. I suspect that for Mr. Krugman, and other self-hating Americans like him, any expression of love for one’s country is tantamount to the hate-spewing, wild-eyed jingoism of the lesser mortal set. The kind of “extremist” Americans Paul vilifies on regular occasions.

Yet it is Mr. Krugman himself who is a hate-spewer of the first order. Even before the victims killed in the Gabrielle Giffords atrocity were in the ground, Paul was foaming about “toxic rhetoric..coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be ‘armed and dangerous’ without being ostracized,” he fumed.

It’s been tough month for the Krug-inator. From Joe Biden’s characterization of Tea Partiers as “terrorists” to Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Congressman Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) telling a CBC audience in Miami that “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree,” along with Frederica Wilson (D-FL) calling them “the real enemy,” it would appear that some fairly “toxic rhetoric” is coming from the left ­ absent any of the ostracization which Mr. Krugman ostensibly desires.

He continues: “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?”

A blind eye? As soon as progressives like Krugman thought it was safe, George W. Bush became the most vilified wartime president in the history of the nation. Remember “Bush lied, people died,” or describing the former president as the “world’s foremost terrorist?” How about a career military man dedicated to keeping the nation safe referred to as “General Betrayus,” or several members of the administration constantly referred to as “war criminals?” How about Guantanamo Bay being referred to as a “gulag” by Democrat Dick Durbin or former presidential candidate John Kerry referring to American troops as “terrorists?” All of which occurred while American men and women were in harm’s way.

How about the utter corruption of a progressive-tainted mainstream media, including Krugman’s own New York Times, which published top-secret terror-fighting strategies, Newsweek and their false story about a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Gitmo, or CNN’s s chief news executive Eason Jordan who admitted the network systematically covered up stories of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein in order to keep their Baghdad bureau open?

Think any of that might have turned 9/11 into a “wedge issue,” Mr. Krugman?

Paul then gives us the amateur psychiatrist bit. “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”

Sure they do, Paul. That’s why millions of Americans were publicly or privately commemorating the atrocity, and passes to the 9/11 memorial in New York City were the hottest tickets in the country. It’s why Vice President Joe Biden noted that “the true legacy of 9/11 is that our spirit is mightier,” or Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed that while terrorists could kill our citizens, they “could not kill our citizenship.” It’s why Americans were praying, flying flags, and reminiscing in large gatherings, not only at Ground Zero, but also at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA, where former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton joined forces to sing the praises of the passengers of Flight 93.

All because they were ashamed ­ right?

Yet despite his pathetic vitriol, if Mr. Krugman had had the courage to stand by his words perhaps that in and of itself might have mitigated his rant somewhat. But he didn’t. “I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons,” Mr. Krugman concluded. Obvious reasons? The only one this writer can come up with that’s obvious is the fact that Paul Krugman is willing to dish it out, but unwilling to take it.

The conscience of a liberal? The contemptible thought-closet of a no-class coward is more like it.    
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40266