I hadn’t planned on writing anything about 9/11. It’s too somber a day. And then I saw Paul Krugman’s latest screed in the NYT. He’s not allowing comments on it “for obvious reasons.” Yeah – they are obvious. He’s a coward. This is so shameful, I’m at a loss for words. So here are his:
The Conscience of a Liberal
Paul Krugman, September 11, 2011
The Years of Shame
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. 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.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
No, Krugman, I’m not ashamed about 9/11. I might feel shame that there are people like you in my country, but I have a strict policy of only feeling shame over my own actions, not those of liberals with a so-called “conscience” or murdering terrorists.
So what would you have had Bush and Giuliani done, instead of rallying the troops and workers, rebuilding our cities, rescuing civilians, and punishing those who attacked us? Should they have sat back and wrung their hands, bleating about what we had done to make psychotic terrorists hate us? I suspect, had they done so, you would have written the same column.